Could God create a universe without suffering?

[Universal Mind]

Yes, I am beating a horse, but the horse is not dead until this issue has been set totally straight, and I think we are far from that. I recently started a thread titled "Is God bound by any laws of reality?" after not getting my issue cleared up in the other threads. Even that thread didn't get my issue concerning God's existence fully addressed. I only got one yes/no answer to it from a theist, and it was from Awaken. It was several pages before I could finally get that out of him.

Those who may be offended by my recurring point should take comfort in the fact that I want to believe in an infinitely powerful, totally good creator of the universe who can give me eternal life. There would be nothing better. I am just not convinced of it. I am having a great deal of trouble getting my issue with the idea cleared up, so I thought that a more relevant thread question should be asked.

My question is exactly what is asked in the poll question. I am looking for yes/no answers followed by elaborations. Theists, PLEASE give a YES/NO answer before saying anything else, and then explain your answer. If you are an atheist or an agnostic, don't worry about that request. I am talking about theists. I want to understand the view of the theists better. Thanks.

[Seeker]

Of course he could, but that being the case, where would there be room for his creations to learn and grow?

Let's simplify this. You get a new kitten, do everything to make its life comfortable and without pain, you never let it take any risks or do anything which it could get hurt or suffer pain.

That is going to be one really messed up kitten.

[InTheMoment]

Originally posted by Seeker
Of course he could, but that being the case, where would there be room for his creations to learn and grow?

Let's simplify this. *You get a new kitten, do everything to make its life comfortable and without pain, you never let it take any risks or do anything which it could get hurt or suffer pain. *

That is going to be one really messed up kitten.
Only if said kitty ever runs into any problems. If you (or god for that matter) could prevent any problems or ill circumstances from ever happening to said kitty; what would be the harm in that?

[Universal Mind]

Originally posted by Seeker
Of course he could, but that being the case, where would there be room for his creations to learn and grow?

Let's simplify this. *You get a new kitten, do everything to make its life comfortable and without pain, you never let it take any risks or do anything which it could get hurt or suffer pain. *

That is going to be one really messed up kitten.

But my point is that God is supposed to be infinitely powerful, so he could change all of that. He could create any situation and have no problems with it. I can't, but if I were infinitely powerful, I would be able to.

[spoon]

Of course he could, but that being the case, where would there be room for his creations to learn and grow?

Let's simplify this. You get a new kitten, do everything to make its life comfortable and without pain, you never let it take any risks or do anything which it could get hurt or suffer pain.

That is going to be one really messed up kitten. [/b]Not really, plenty of people have show cats/home cats that would fit this description. They turn out fine, sure they have no hunting skills whatsoever, but they have no need. My friends have a purebred burmese that can't go outside because people steal purebred cats apparantly, its pretty cool :)

The way I think of it is this. Currently we've got all of these natural events that cause suffering, some people go through their entire lives without suffering a flood, tornado, earthquake, etc. They lead productive lives.

But of course that's not the only kind of suffering. There's also that caused by people. It is caused by people because, in the christian mythos, we were created with a predisposition towards sin/bad behaviour. If god created us with a predisposition to do only good we'd still interact and grow, just not interact in a bad way.

-spoon

[Ynot]

Universal Mind, You've used the "But God is meant to be infinitely powerful" route on at least 2 other debates
and I really don't think you get what's going on, here

I always feel I have to re-itterate that I'm not religious, when I do stuff like this
but I do know a fair bit about religion

feel free to poke holes in all that follows :lol:

Man needs to be able to freely choose between good and evil
and it's that ability to freely choose, which is important
Christians call this ability, the human soul
and only we humans have a soul

Animals do not have a soul (aka the ability of free chose between good and evil)

For God to create a world with no evil will not be the same as paradise
I said somewhere on another thread, that paradise is only paradise when compared to hell. If you know no suffering, you will not appreciate paradise.
(would ice-cream taste so good, if you hadn't tasted broccoli)

The whole idea, is for man to know of evil (through living out his life) but to actively reject it, in favour of good.

to know no evil, at the end of the day, don't mean shit
you have to know evil
and be able to cope with evil being all around you
while not giving in to evil
that's the sign of a good man

Cause when the final assault comes
Gods soldiers will have to combat all the evil in the world
and if his soldiers have not rejected evil in their living lives
how the hell are they going to stay true and un-corrupted when fighting in God's name

Damn, I need to stop doing this
or I'm going to get arrested by undercover FBI operatives
that sounded like a call to arms
"Rise up and quash the infidels"
Bugger
maybe I'm a closet extremist

[AirRick101]

It's very popular to justify suffering to show that we learn and grow from them, but that's in this dimension and this universe. But if God was infinite, why couldn't he have created a universe with the required "laws" and such that can set the stage for a life without suffering? This is something religionists cannot answer, and that I often hold something against the "divine." But...since the horse is already dead, I don't think there is much more I can add.

[Oogi_Boogi]

But of course that's not the only kind of suffering. *There's also that caused by people. *It is caused by people because, in the christian mythos, we were created with a predisposition towards sin/bad behaviour. *If god created us with a predisposition to do only good we'd still interact and grow, just not interact in a bad way.

-spoon[/b]

Well if you want to get down to the Bible, it says in Genesis that man was created holy and in God's image. Then satan entered the world and through him, sin. So technically man started out perfect, and without problems. Therefore, God can, and did, create a world without suffering. Adam and Eve had everything they needed without anything negative.

[Preacher]

Yes, he could........But why would he?

We create our own suffering......As a global society and also largely due to our individual perception of what is suffering......

If you must climb a mountain to see to the next valley......That can suck......Climbing is hard........Some may see it as suffering.....Some may see it as a welcomed challenge worthy of a greter reward.........

We learn from suffering........We cannot have good without the possibility and choice for each of us to commit evil......Yin Yang..........Without one there cannot be the other....Without darkness we would not know what light is.........

Suffering is a gift and we are never burdned with more than we can handle the many of us often think so...........

[bradybaker]

Originally posted by Preacher
Yes, he could........But why would he?

We create our own suffering......As a global society and also largely due to our individual perception of what is suffering......

If you must climb a mountain to see to the next valley......That can suck......Climbing is hard........Some may see it as suffering.....Some may see it as a welcomed challenge worthy of a greter reward.........

We learn from suffering........We cannot have good without the possibility and choice for each of us to commit evil......Yin Yang..........Without one there cannot be the other....Without darkness we would not know what light is.........

Suffering is a gift and we are never burdned with more than we can handle the many of us often think so...........
For the last time. God could change those laws of reality. God could make up down, God could make black white, God could make left right, God could make learning possible without suffering, God could make us know what light is without knowing dark. God has the power. That's the fundamental logical flaw of an all-loving, all-powerful being.

[AirRick101]

Brady has the point I was implying. Why couldn't have God bended the laws of the universe to make a life system where everything was perfect? Where improvement wasn't necessary, and where the capacity for boredom wouldn't be present? (to the people who insist on change) A system where mistakes weren't necessary to learn? Too often, people only look within the limitations we currently have. For the sake of acceptance, I agree with doing that, but logically, it is unanswerable.

[spoon]

I realised something today. I haven't suffered in my life. No-one I know has been raped, murdered, tornadoe'd, flood'd, got a terminal disease, etc. No-one has tried to make me suffer, no-one has expected me to suffer - yet I've grown fine. If I can develop in to a perfectly normal 20 year old without suffering, how is suffering a requirement for developing?

You might answer: "but you've suffered in other ways". Fine. Then why do the examples I gave (murder, etc) which I have definately not suffered from exist? They are clearly not needed for development.

You might answer: "but you've heard about other people suffering, that is enough". If you need not actually experience it to develop, then god could create us with the knowledge of suffering.

[Universal Mind]

Originally posted by Ynot+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ynot)</div>
Man needs to be able to freely choose between good and evil
and it's that ability to freely choose, which is important
Christians call this ability, the human soul
and only we humans have a soul

For God to create a world with no evil will not be the same as paradise
I said somewhere on another thread, that paradise is only paradise when compared to hell. *If you know no suffering, you will not appreciate paradise.
(would ice-cream taste so good, if you hadn't tasted broccoli)

The whole idea, is for man to know of evil (through living out his life) but to actively reject it, in favour of good.

to know no evil, at the end of the day, don't mean shit
you have to know evil
and be able to cope with evil being all around you
while not giving in to evil
that's the sign of a good man

[/b]

<!--QuoteBegin-Preacher


We learn from suffering........We cannot have good without the possibility and choice for each of us to commit evil......Yin Yang..........Without one there cannot be the other....Without darkness we would not know what light is.........



As Brady and AirRick further pointed out, an infinitely powerful being chould change every bit of that. The point of this thread is that an omnipotent God would not have to work within the confines of reality as we know it. That is why I put the "without there being any problems with the complete absence of suffering" at the end of my question. You guys keep talking about problems with the absence of suffering. I am asking if it is possible for God to make it where there wouldn't be any. Do you see what I am saying? That is the logical flaw I see in the idea of an omnipotent being who has no level of indifference. Talking about "have to's" and "needs" doesn't sufficiently address the issue. Because, by definition, there is no "have to" that can apply to an omnipotent being, I think there is no way around the point. That is why I don't believe in an omnipotent being who is totally good. I wish I did. If you see a way around my full point, please tell me what it is.

[O-Nieronaut]

I think a key issue is being ignored here, and I'm going to try to illustrate it. Forgive me for not stating my bias up-front; I don't know what it is yet. I'll tell you in a minute, I might ramble.

Let's look at what suffering actually is. The average western mindset says that suffering is experiencing crappy things. Tornados, floods, pestacios, ect... This is a limited, and a pessimistic standard. As living beings, we rely on certain skills for our survival: Breathing, scoring, opening aluminum cans, and most importantly, differentiating one thing from another, like a cool thing from a crappy thing; a taffy from a tiger. The basic tool we have for learning to distinguish one thing from another is suffering. Eastern philosophy handily breaks this down into two parts: Grasping and aversion. Looking at it this way, you begin to see the side of suffering that can be pleasant. Did you already forget the first time you kissed the first person to unhinge your senses? It wasn't a small thing. There was tension before, a longing, a suffering that came to a head at that very moment your lips touched. It was agony, and it made you want it again. Suffering is the only thing that motivates us to do anything. If we were never tense, we would have no desire to relax. If we never got bored, we would not seek adventure. Et Circum Infinita.

There is no good or bad side to any type of suffering. They are physiologically the same. Have you ever noticed how similar laughing and crying are? They serve the same purpose: eleviate a certain kind of tension. The distinction is an intellectual one, the knowledge of what brought about the emotion. The emotion serves to return us to the center. Peace. Calmness. Tranquility.

If God creates a universe without suffering, then He creates a universe without emotion. A machine; a contraption. If he put mankind there, then mankind would behave blindly, making no decisions, following the tide of simple consequense. The human mind is like a circumstancial capacitor, storing experiences with memories of emotion to dredge up later for tha sake of making desicions.

Life is suffering. But it's not so bad. Relax.

[AirRick101]

Well, I was on that side of the argument just because it was intellectually more demanding. But of course, realistically, I won't expect to live outside of a reality of suffering. Life is suffering, but it's also pleasure. I don't know if you need bad to experience good, but the bad definately will help you appreciate the good.

Suffering is pain, anything that makes us feel our survival quotient has been lowered. Or our ability to thrive has been surpressed to merely only surviving.

But, I once learned that all sensation is a degree of conflict or "pain." Pleasure in and of itself is not possible, but a certain arrangement of friction will cause sensations we call pleasure, and when you get too much, it's called pain. It's like the way hot and cold works. Cold does not exist in and of itself, but the heat calls the shots depending on how much there is at a time. But...do you ever think it's possible that natural laws could not get more infinite than they already are, despite our insisting that there should be?

[Universal Mind]

Originally posted by O-Nieronaut

If God creates a universe without suffering, then He creates a universe without emotion. A machine; a contraption. If he put mankind there, then mankind would behave blindly, making no decisions, following the tide of simple consequense. The human mind is like a circumstancial capacitor, storing experiences with memories of emotion to dredge up later for tha sake of making desicions.



But my point is that an infinitely powerful being could change that law of reality and any other law of reality. That is the point that has not been countered.

[InTheMoment]

Will there be suffering in Heaven? Will there be temptation to do evil and/or wrong things in Heaven? Will we still possess whatever negative charateristics that we possess here on Earth?

If you answer NO to all of those questions, then why didn't an Omnibenelovent and Omnipotent god keep his "cherished" creation in Heaven?

If your planning on saying that we must first experience suffering and pain in order to appreciate the positive qualities of life, then what happens in say 10 million years of being in Heaven? Wouldn't we eventually become desensitized to all of the eternal bliss?

Sorry about posting so many questions in one post...theist feel free to pick each question out and respond as necessary.

[O-Nieronaut]

Originally posted by AirRick101
Life is suffering, but it's also pleasure.

You missed my point, friend. Pleasure is also suffering.

[scorpifly]

To answer the question; I say yes. And now for my 2 cents:
How do we really know that this existence of ours is not perfect? The only suffering that anyone has ever had, is because we interpreted it as such. I mean, a person into S&M suffers, but in a less acceptable way? I personally have never been starved, shot, robbed, or any other such horrible things. But, I have been beaten, pistol whipped, and raped. Through all these things, I never suffered. I endured. Why didn't I suffer, well its simple, it happened to me not my younger siblings. So where some see things as suffering, others see relief.

[Genjyo]

[quote]As Brady and AirRick further pointed out, an infinitely powerful being chould change every bit of that. The point of this thread is that an omnipotent God would not have to work within the confines of reality as we know it. That is why I put the \"without there being any problems with the complete absence of suffering\" at the end of my question. You guys keep talking about problems with the absence of suffering. I am asking if it is possible for God to make it where there wouldn't be any. Do you see what I am saying? That is the logical flaw I see in the idea of an omnipotent being who has no level of indifference. Talking about \"have to's\" and \"needs\" doesn't sufficiently address the issue. Because, by definition, there is no \"have to\" that can apply to an omnipotent being, I think there is no way around the point. That is why I don't believe in an omnipotent being who is totally good. I wish I did. If you see a way around my full point, please tell me what it is.

Hi UniversalMind, that is some logical thinking. If I am in the vicinity of this thought, a question similar to yours is: If God is perfect, why is his creation imperfect (ie, why is there suffering and why is he not doing anything about it)?

First of all, I believe that God is not bound by any laws of reality(someone else had posted a similar thread..you? hehe). Esentially he did create a universe without suffering. Since time immemorial including the beginnings of his heavenly family...this universe...this Earth, harmony was everywhere. With the Creation of Man and finally Woman, everything was beautiful. Then Sin happened and the "Fall" took place.

I'll continue later, but maybe you can let me know if this is what you were getting at

Did this touch upon anything you were asking about? I've come to the conclusion that suffering was a natural result of the rebellion that took place when Satan, Adam and Eve betrayed God. A comforting reminder I found is that God is not indifferent to our suffering and ultimately suffering and evil will be eliminated since there will no longer be a purpose for it.

[Rakkantekimusouka]

I can't believe I hadn't responded to this yet.

I would say no, but then, that is due to my belief about the nature of God; I believe God is not omnipotent.

[AirRick101]

Originally posted by O-Nieronaut


You missed my point, friend. Pleasure is also suffering.

I've already said on the forum that pleasure is to a degree some sort of pain. And enough of that pain will cause the unpleasant "pain!!!" It's parallel to the hot and cold situation. There is no cold in and of itself, it's merely the absence of temperature.

But this misses the point, too. As long as we perceive something as pleasure, there's no point in trying to define life as suffering in those terms. But since everything is relative, isn't it just as possible that suffering is only imagined. What if we wanted the way things are to be the way things are? This is not realistic, but what if that was our state of mind in anticipation? Could we suffer then?

[Universal Mind]

Originally posted by Rakkantekimusouka
I would say no, but then, that is due to my belief about the nature of God; I believe God is not omnipotent.

That is a much more difficult idea of God to argue against. That idea is something I can only say is extremely far fetched, but I can't use logic to completely disprove it. It seems to me like a major fantasy idea, but it does not involve contradictions, at least not that much alone.

[kimpossible]

But with every step off of omnipotence, doesn't it reduce your desire to worship such an imperfect thang by like the square of the distance from omnipotence?

I mean, last I checked, my left pinky toenail wasn't omnipotent either. And I had very little desire to worship it. If it were omnipotent, I'd buy it a lot more really nice pairs of shoes. But then, I'd kinda expect it to create its own really nice shoes, being omnipotent and all.

I guess that's my point: If it were omnipotent, you'd expect something better from it. If it's not, then why do I care what it thinks?

[O-Nieronaut]

Heh, I don't think I would say such things where an omnipotent entity that might exist might overhear. :gator:

[Universal Mind]

Originally posted by O-Nieronaut
Heh, I don't think I would say such things where an omnipotent entity that might exist might overhear. :gator:

Tell him to bring his bitch ass on, if he thinks he's bad.

[Rakkantekimusouka]

Originally posted by Universal Mind
Tell him to bring his bitch ass on, if he thinks he's bad.
Actually, I also believe that while being an amorphous mass of energy, God also "gave birth" to the universe, so that would make it more female than male. :wink:

[kimpossible]

Originally posted by Rakkantekimusouka

Actually, I also believe that while being an amorphous mass of energy, God also \"gave birth\" to the universe, so that would make it more female than male. *:wink:

Isn't that kinda narrow-minded? If your god was a seahorse, then if memory serves, it would be the male of the species that "gives birth", no?


[followed my own advice and double-checked that factoid. It is correct]

[Rakkantekimusouka]

Originally posted by kimpossible
Isn't that kinda narrow-minded? *If your god was a seahorse, then if memory serves, it would be the male of the species that \"gives birth\", no? *


[followed my own advice and double-checked that factoid. *It is correct]
Yeah, I know -- I was just messing with U-Mind, mostly, didn't mean much by that comment. :P However, it is still the female seahorse that conceives and grows the babies, she just transfers them to the male for birth. I'm pretty sure that's also accurate.

[kimpossible]

Not to be too disagreeable, but I think you'll find it's the male that conceives and grows them.

The female inserts her oviduct (kinda like a female penis) into his brood pouch. She humps him for a little while and then deposits her _unfertilized_ eggs into his pouch. He fertilizes them, they develop in his pouch, then he gives live-birth. Contractions and all.

http://www.bio.davidson.edu/Courses/anphys...eproduction.htm (http://www.bio.davidson.edu/Courses/anphys/2000/Cook/Reproduction.htm)

There are species of pipe-fish that are similar.

[OpheliaBlue]

Originally posted by kim
The female inserts her oviduct (kinda like a female penis) into his brood pouch. *She humps him for a little while and then deposits her _unfertilized_ eggs into his pouch. *He fertilizes them, they develop in his pouch, then he gives live-birth. *Contractions and all.
I was a seahorse in my former life

[kimpossible]

Originally posted by OpheliaBlue

I was a seahorse in my former life

How'd that work-out for you?

[Rakkantekimusouka]

Wow, I stand corrected. My bad. :doh:

Isn't it refreshing to hear someone just say that, in all simplicity? :P Nothing like admitting you're wrong, getting it straight, and moving on to make a body healthy and wise.

LMAO, Blue. :chuckle: Wait, but which were you? The male or the female?

[kimpossible]

Originally posted by Rakkantekimusouka
Isn't it refreshing to hear someone just say that, in all simplicity?

Actually, I found it most refreshing to have a disagreement with an intelligent and [reasonably] sane person using fact and referencing scholarly works. Notice I didn't get all offensive and up-in-arms? That's what happens when we can talk about reality. We can disagree and no one gets hurt.

And yes - I appreciate your standing up and saying "my bad". I did that in another thread with Nes, where I'd missed the quote. It's really not that painful, huh? ;)

[Rakkantekimusouka]

Originally posted by kimpossible+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kimpossible)</div>Actually, I found it most refreshing to have a disagreement with an intelligent and [reasonably] sane person using fact and referencing scholarly works. *Notice I didn't get all offensive and up-in-arms? *That's what happens when we can talk about reality. *We can disagree and no one gets hurt.[/b]
Totally. :content:

<!--QuoteBegin-kimpossible
And yes - I appreciate your standing up and saying \"my bad\". *I did that in another thread with Nes, where I'd missed the quote. *It's really not that painful, huh? *;)
Thanks; and yeah, nothing to it, really. Now if only certain others could understand that. >_>

[Ex Nine]

Could God (defined as infinitely powerful and totally good) createa universe with conscious minds but without suffering and without there being any problem with the complete absence of suffering?[/b]

Well, I have seen worlds without suffering, and where there are absolutely no problems with there being completely no suffering, and that has been in dreams.

Coincidentally, in my dream world, I'm God.

So the answer to your question is yes, if we say that the dream world, or worlds within, are self-contained "universes," independent from this one, which clearly has something we call suffering.

I'm not comfortable with that notion, though, for how would I be able to "travel" between these universes? What holds them together? I think in this case imagining that they are alternative universes it is an artifact of our imagination, which does appear to be a reasonably self-contained universe when highly active in a dream, but is not actually so. And this is demonstrable in many ways, if only by the fact that noises like the sound of your alarm clock can interfere with your dreaming, without stopping it right away.

But, the answer would still be yes, in a way, if we allow dreams to be act as functionally separate universes, with no discernable interference from the outside world, for the purposes of having a functional universe without suffering, even if is not actually a separate universe to begin with.

Functional universes without suffering will be marketed to us someday. They already are in very rudimentary forms - and to great success. Why need God when market forces will bring it to us eventually? :content:

[InTheMoment]

Originally posted by The Sexy Sea Equestrian

I was a seahorse in my former life
I'm hung like a seahorse. (female that is)

/me flaunts his oviduct

[Universal Mind]

Originally posted by Rakkantekimusouka

Actually, I also believe that while being an amorphous mass of energy, God also \"gave birth\" to the universe, so that would make it more female than male. :wink:

Well, originally God was a man, but then he said, "I want to be a woman. From now on, call me Loretta. I want to have babies." Now, she has a vagina. I have seen it. She needs to cover it up before she gets arrested for indecent exposure.

(This lawless forum is going to be fun.)

[OpheliaBlue]

Originally posted by kimpossible


How'd that work-out for you?
Was great. I boinked roughly 1 million males. Most of them were seahorses.


lmao james :P

[MarthaM]

Could God (defined as infinitely powerful and totally good) createa universe with conscious minds but without suffering and without there being any problem with the complete absence of suffering?[/b]

Yes.

[Universal Mind]

Originally posted by MarthaM
Could God (defined as infinitely powerful and totally good) createa universe with conscious minds but without suffering and without there being any problem with the complete absence of suffering?

Yes.[/b]

:shock: :o :!: My goodness, a second straight answer from a theist who wants to have a discussion about this! I need to sit here for a moment and come out of my shock. Thank you!

Now for the apparently hard part. Awaken got to phase 1, the yes/no answer portion of the conversation, but has yet to come out of that box and finish the 2nd and final phase of this. Please complete it. If God is real, he knows that several atheists here are trying very hard to understand the resolution to the apparent contradiction in the Christian belief. So please do what in that case would be your duty to God... Clear this up for us. Wouldn't God be wanting you to give a thorough performance on this?

You just said that God COULD create a universe without suffering and WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY PROBLEM WITH THE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF SUFFERING. However, that obviously did not happen. So, why not? He could have a universe with no suffering and (very, very importantly...) no problem with that absence of suffering. The existence of suffering disproves the notion that a being that CAN do what you just said he can do exists AND is not indifferent to suffering. If he is in fact able to create the universe I described, but allowed suffering any way, then he is indifferent to suffering. Remember, telling me what problems there would be with the absence of suffering (which Awaken does every time he actually dares to address this) misses a very important part of the concept. We have covered the "problems with the complete absence of suffering" part of the issue. They don't have to exist, under your belief. So why would suffering exist under such circumstances? It is a contradiction. Please explain to me how there is no contradiction.

Also, telling me what God cannot do because he "limits himself" (Awaken's words) does not answer the question. Under the described scenario, God would not have to limit himself, so his doing so would be a sign of indifference to suffering.

The big issue: Where is the flaw in my point that the contradiction exists?

[MarthaM]

* My goodness, a second straight answer from a theist who wants to have a discussion about this! I need to sit here for a moment and come out of my shock. Thank you![/b]
Theist.
Do you mean? \"Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.\"
By this definition I am not a Theist.
Wouldn't God be wanting you to give a thorough performance on this?[/b]
As a human being I hate being misquoted. If I were God I really, really would not want anyone else to speak for me.
You just said that God COULD create a universe without suffering and WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY PROBLEM WITH THE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF SUFFERING. However, that obviously did not happen. So, why not?[/b]
I don't know.
The existence of suffering disproves the notion that a being that CAN do what you just said he can do exists AND is not indifferent to suffering.[/b]
I do not assume that God is indifferent to suffering. I do assume that God has a purpose for allowing suffering to exist. I do not know what that purpose is.
The big issue: Where is the flaw in my point that the contradiction exists?[/b]
You assume too much.

[kimpossible]

[quote]The big issue: Where is the flaw in my point that the contradiction exists?
You assume too much.

You seem to get off on writing that. Unfortunately, you don't detail any flaw in the logic, so you just end-up looking silly and evasive. With the emphasis on silly.

[Lucid Mind]

NO !

What would be bigger suffering :

When you can walk only on the bridge?
or
you walk whereever you want, even theres a possibility
to get eated by hippopotamus ! :-P

[Universal Mind]

Martha, I asked you a legitimate question, which is not a matter of assuming too much. Your response was nonsensical. By "theist", I mean somebody who believes in God. You assume too much, but answer too little.

Originally posted by Lucid Mind
NO !

What would be bigger suffering :

When you can walk only on the bridge?
or
you walk whereever you want, even theres a possibility
to get eated by hippopotamus ! :-P

You, like the others, are missing the WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY PROBLEM WITH THE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF SUFFERING part of my point. Why am I having such a difficult time getting people to take that part of the scenario into account? My point is not that complex. It is very simple, but MAN the evasiveness is out of hand!

[MarthaM]

You just said that God COULD create a universe without suffering and WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY PROBLEM WITH THE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF SUFFERING. However, that obviously did not happen. So, why not?[/b]
I don't know why God did not create a perfect world for you to live in.
Come to think of it, that world would be quite dull and boring wouldn't it? No heated discussions because emotions get involved and eventually lead to suffering. No one to fall in love with because eventually there would be - - - suffering. No physical challenges to face because feelings will get hurt when at least one of Mankind fails to meet the challenge. For example, swim the English Channel, climb K2, etc.

Who brought suffering into this world: Man or God?

Or maybe, the world is perfect but Man is not.

[Lucid Mind]

Originally posted by Universal Mind
Martha, I asked you a legitimate question, which is not a matter of assuming too much. Your response was nonsensical. By \"theist\", I mean somebody who believes in God. You assume too much, but answer too little.



You, like the others, are missing the WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY PROBLEM WITH THE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF SUFFERING part of my point. Why am I having such a difficult time getting people to take that part of the scenario into account? My point is not that complex. It is very simple, but MAN the evasiveness is out of hand!

Hei, its you here who misses the point of free will. If i want to kick somebody and cant, then its suffering to me,if i have free will and kick somebody then its suffering to that person!
:!:

Or to you want to point out that it would be like "rabbit is enjoing eating carrot - enjoing getting eated by wolf and enjoing to be get shot and enjoing doing that rabbit thing very same way?"If you really think that way then why just not sayit? :?

[kimpossible]

No - it wouldn't be boring. Nor would it be suffering. Hello? INFINITE POWER.

So your god just waves his wang around and poof! No boring, no suffering.

There are no rules that apply. Hence infinite power. Any issue that you could come up with, ANY ISSUE you could come up with (are you getting the "any" and "infinite" thing yet?) is answered simply by his deciding that's not the way it works.

I can't figure out if you guys are arguing for the sake of arguing, or if you're just not bright enough to get the point...

[Ex Nine]

I don't think they have to courage to get the point, Kim.

Only God is strong enough to understand or some such.

[Universal Mind]

Originally posted by kimpossible

So your god just waves his wang around and poof! No boring, no suffering.



I am absolutely stunned at the blind spot so many people have when it comes to that very simple point. I have posted "... without there being any problems with the complete absence of suffering" so many times here, and I always get, "Of course he could create that, but then there would be such and such problems..." Hello?!!!!

[Ex Nine]

And I'm stunned at how no one seemed to recognize that I not only said it was possible but that I observed a working model.

[Mark75]

As in
[i][b]***EDITED BY GOD, WITH HIS SOMEWHAT LIMITED INFINITE POWER***

[Ex Nine]

Mark, I think your post is an illusion.

[Mark75]

Originally posted by Ex Nine
Mark, I think your post is an illusion.
Or so it would SEEM

Seriously, though. What do you mean?

[Universal Mind]

Originally posted by Mark75
As valid as your points may be, I think these topics are going nowhere. All points have been argued, but no one wants to listen to them. I believe the issue has been exhausted.

Hey, my mind was open as space for a while as I actually BEGGED in a very civil manner for somebody to explain where the flaw in my reasoning is. If you look at the past few posts, you will see specific examples of the condescending evasiveness that sent me into a smart ass frenzy. The issue is far from exhausted. Nobody has explained the resolution to my issue yet. 100% of them have missed the bull's eye. But if you want to argue that nobody who disagrees with me is going to hit my issue straight on, I agree with you at this point. My belief in the nonexistence an omnipotent, omnibenevolent creator is now further supported. I was really hoping otherwise, but not with much hope.

[Mark75]

Originally posted by Universal Mind

...The issue is far from exhausted. Nobody has explained the resolution to my issue yet. 100% of them have missed the bull's eye. But if you want to argue that nobody who disagrees with me is going to hit my issue straight on, I agree with you at this point. ...
Exactly. You are running a race to see who's faster, but no one will run against you. You can run as far and as fast as you want, but they won't let you win because they won't run the same race. Not much point in running around in circles by yourself.

[Nirvana Starseed]

Originally posted by numbass
No - it wouldn't be boring. Nor would it be suffering. Hello? INFINITE POWER. So your god just waves his wang around and poof! No boring, no suffering.
There are no rules that apply. Hence infinite power. Any issue that you could come up with, ANY ISSUE you could come up with (are you getting the \"any\" and \"infinite\" thing yet?) is answered simply by his deciding that's not the way it works. I can't figure out if you guys are arguing for the sake of arguing, or if you're just not bright enough to get the point...

numbass I have no idea what you are going on about. But it sure as hell does not make sense as usual. God is Infinitely powerful because of the common sense and reason, wisdom, intelligence god has. Not because god clicks his fingers and illogical magic happens. It does work that way. God does not make the laws of truth go away. If you do not wish them to be there. They will not go away because you decide god will change them if he wanted to. It does not work that way. You do not understand what god is if you think that is how it works.

You of yourself do not have the power to change these things, because you do not have infinite knowledge wisdom ect. If you did have the knowledge your will would be totally different. Due to your increased understanding.


My comment to this thread.....

If god created no suffering it would be hell anyway, because suffering has a vital part in growth in allowing the experience of nirvana.

2 words that we need to understand. "god" and "suffering"

Suffering is ignorance. Its a result of going against laws of truth. If you are a slave to truth, you are a servant to the master of nirvana and will experience it and become it. If you are a slave to sin (missing the mark, or bullseye) You are a servant to the master or error and will suffer it, and will experience it.

I know who I want to serve.

Overall god has no suffering and it's not gods problem. You are the one with that problem. because you do not know god. When you know yourself you will no longer suffer the ignorance of unknowing. However if you choose error over knowing. Then you will still have that problem. If you wish to be free of suffering. Know yourself.

[kimpossible]

>> Its a result of going against laws of truth.

I can't imagine how much it must suck to be as clueless as you...

If an infinitely powerful being decided to change "the laws of truth" - then clearly the "laws of truth" could suddenly become the "laws of untruth" or my dog's nuts. Or whatever the hell else the infinitely powerful being decided they should be.

I think you are having problems with the word "infinite". Not a huge surprise for someone with your remarkably limited intellect. I'm surprised you don't turn blue and pass out whilst typing. It's a wonder that a single active braincell could handle simultaneously breathing and typing. It's a credit to the redundancy built into even the most limited "brain", such as yours.

[Nirvana Starseed]

I would also like to mention that a place/dimension of vibration with no suffering containing consious entitys does exist. God has already created this. But we are not yet worthy to enter it. Because we would create suffering in it. So we are unable to access it. Until our understanding and experience reaches a point where we are able to exist there.


Originally posted by numbass
I can't imagine how much it must suck to be as clueless as you...

kind of ironic I was thinking the same thing with you.

If an infinitely powerful being decided to change \"the laws of truth\" - then clearly the \"laws of truth\" could suddenly become the \"laws of untruth\" or my dog's nuts. Or whatever the hell else the infinitely powerful being decided they should be.[/b]

you still are unable to understand. An infinitely powerful being is alot wiser than yourself, and understands the existence of those laws of truth. And does not decide such things as to change them. If such a being even considered this that entity would immediately sink to your level and probally lower. Which would be a state of total delusion required to experience this.

\"infinite\" has nothing to do with illogical magic processes of your imagination.

I think you are having problems with the word \"infinite\".[/b]

As I mentioned \"Infinite\" does not mean ridiculous impossible magic. That is possible in your imagination only, therefore possible. And to you it is real. To that I am not dissagreeing. It just requires a certain amount of delusion to achieve this. what I am saying is that god does not use his power to turn laws of truth into your dogs nuts. It is simply not desirable those kinds of things. It is similar to me eating dirt and swimming in the sewer because I have the ability too. Does not mean I want to create that reality for myself.

If you want to create a universe where laws of truth are untruth. Keep going you are on the right track to start off. Everything I have herd from you has not made sense. Your laws of untruth will still be truth that they are laws of untruth. So you cannot get away from it. Your reason that it must be possible because gods all powerful, is a illogical thought of your imagination. Which exists as possible there only.

Not a huge surprise for someone with your remarkably limited intellect. I'm surprised you don't turn blue and pass out whilst typing. It's a wonder that a single active braincell could handle simultaneously breathing and typing. It's a credit to the redundancy built into even the most limited \"brain\", such as yours[/b]

There is no reason for me to turn blue and pass out while typing. No single active braincell is capable of typing into a computer by itself, it does not type into a computer, or breathe for the body as a whole, and that is not its overall function. It is only a part of the whole, which then carries out these functions working together. Your conclusion of my lack of intelligence does not seem to be based on anything logical. Infact I can rarely find anything that makes sense when you type. You pretty much have everything backwards. I have explained why in alot of varies posts, thus to the point where I feel the need to name you numbass, just to address you. It would not seem right naming you anything else.You are a pain in the ass with your flingshot but it does not effect me thus, numbass.

But seriously not until you aquire and establish some sort of common sense. Will you be worthy of any other name. I decided to wasted so much time on you, and I don't think I will do it again. You certainly don't see the value in it. But it may have helped to teach me a thing or too contemplating this. So I went ahead.

[Ex Nine]

Originally posted by Mark75

Or so it would SEEM

Seriously, though. What do you mean?

Well, you sounded like you were going to distract everybody and I wanted to distract you.

Bam! That's illusion.

Except now I told you, so now it's not illusion. Illusionists take note.

[kimpossible]

>> As I mentioned "Infinite" does not mean ridiculous impossible magic.

In fact, that's exactly what it means. Well, add the word "silly" in there, and you have an accurate definition of omnipotence: "silly ridiculous impossible magic". Yup, dead on.

If you weren't completely wrong, you'd be right.

[Mark75]

Originally posted by Ex Nine


Well, you sounded like you were going to distract everybody and I wanted to distract you.

Bam! That's illusion.

Except now I told you, so now it's not illusion. Illusionists take note.

Oh, I get ya now. You were worried that I might make some people realize that they had nothing good to say, and that it might derail the topic. I understand; there's good fun to be had when someone's out to prove something they don't have even a basic understanding of, or common sense for that matter. I'll just go ahead and fix that post of mine.

[Ex Nine]

No, it's alright.

I was also making a veiled criticism (pun intended) of people who believe the entire world is an illusion.

Because if that were true, then your post would be an illusion. And that just gets us no where.

[Mark75]

Nah, I want this topic to keep going, too. It's funny.

There's nothing but logic involved in answering this question. Since some of us seem to be on a shortage of it, I'll share some of my own. Let's break it down, shall we?

God = has infinite power.
Infinite power = the ability to do anything.
Everything = something and therefore
anything = something.
"a universe with conscious minds but without suffering and without there being any problem with the complete absence of suffering" = something.

Therefore god, being able to do anything, is able to do something, regardless of what that something is (remember, he can do ANYthing). And since "creating a universe with conscious minds but without suffering and without there being any problem with the complete absence of suffering" is something, god can do it.

If at this point you still don't understand, please close your web browser and format your hard drive. Thank you for your co-operation.

[kimpossible]

Spittin' in the wind, Mark. I appreciate the additional effort, but I can't imagine what leap of logic is going to make brain-cells grow in these folks.

[Mark75]

Originally posted by kimpossible
Spittin' in the wind, Mark.
Yeah, I think I acknowledged this a few replies ago, and in a few different threads. But hey, like I say, there's good times to be had watching them try to fit the peices together, never stopping to realize that they're all from different puzzles.

[Universal Mind]

Originally posted by Mark75

Exactly. You are running a race to see who's faster, but no one will run against you. You can run as far and as fast as you want, but they won't let you win because they won't run the same race. Not much point in running around in circles by yourself.

This is not a race! I very seriously want to understand what they are talking about. I used to be a holy roller, and ever since I quit being one, the biggest questions I have about Christianity are NEVER answered by Christians. They mention the questions and talk off topic, and usually insult me for continuing to try to get the answers. I want to know the freakin' resolution to my issue!

I'm not yelling at you, but at them. Thanks for your wisdom.

[Mark75]

Yeah, I suppose I could have worded that better. What I'm saying, though, is that I just don't think you're going to get a straight answer because, quite simply, they don't have straight answers to give (at least none who have posted here).

[Universal Mind]

Originally posted by Mark75
Yeah, I suppose I could have worded that better. What I'm saying, though, is that I just don't think you're going to get a straight answer because, quite simply, they don't have straight answers to give (at least none who have posted here).

I think you're right. One thing I can say is that I put out an absolutely tremendous effort to understand the Christian God better, but what I understand better is that the people who claim to believe in him lack answers and lack a great deal more faith than they are willing to admit. I wish somebody would have just said that. People with strong faith would have responded to me with, "I understand your confusion over the idea of the Christian God (NOBODY even came close to saying that, despite the fact that they couldn't answer my questions or counter my arguments.), and I want to help you understand better. Please help me answer your questions as directly as I can." What I got was nothing close to that, even from a preacher.

I am very close to just giving up. I will go the rest of my life remembering the time I gave the Christian God a very major second look, and I will remember what happened when I tried.

[Nirvana Starseed]

Originally posted by Mark
Let's break it down, shall we?
I'd love to.

God = has infinite power.[/b]
Now lets take a look at this first statement you made.

What is "god"? If we don't know what "god" is. How can we say what has infinite power?
Who is this thing that has infinite power? And why does it have infinite power?
What entity are you imagining? Can you of yourself prove how this thing you labelled god, (by what definition?) has infinite power?

I would reason this and go pretty deeply into it. but I would like some effort from others before i wasted my time.

I do not disagree that it is possible to create a universe without suffering with consious minds. Because it is already done. We are not in that place.

The point of this post is to get to the bottom of what you are saying, so we can truly understand it.

If you want to preach logic, Or attempt to have some logic. You must discuss this with me.
There is no need to go any further until this point is cleared up. The rest of your argument is now irrelevant until this happens. I have pointed out the problem with it here. So we can go no further until you answer these questions. Or you can not claim this to be logic.

[bradybaker]

^ That's the definition of God you jackass.

God, by definition is omnipotent (this means all-powerful). If you're aren't talking about an all-powerful god, you aren't talking about God.

[Mark75]

Originally posted by Nirvana Starseed

Now lets take a look at this first statement you made.

What is \"god\"? Soon as I ask this question. Your entire speach breaks down,
If we don't know what \"god\" is. How can we say what has infinite power?
No, my point does not break down. If you haven't figured out what I refer to when I say \"god\", then you have obviously not read the rest of the thread. A dictionary is useful in a situation like this.

God >noun 1 (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and supreme ruler of the universe.

Originally posted by Nirvana Starseed+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Nirvana Starseed)</div>
Who is this thing that has infinite power?
[/b]
It is god, as defined in this post.
Originally posted by Nirvana Starseed+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Nirvana Starseed)</div>
And why does it have infinite power.
[/b]
This is the common explaination given by thoes who believe in it as to how it is capable of such wonders.
<!--QuoteBegin-Nirvana Starseed@

What entity are you imagining?
I'm not the one imagining it, here.

<!--QuoteBegin-Nirvana Starseed

If you want to preach logic, Or attempt to have some logic. You must discuss this with me.
There is no need to go any further until this point is cleared up. The rest of your argument is now irrelevant until this happens. I have pointed out the problem with it here. So we can go no further until you answer these questions. Or you can not claim this to be logic.

Well, there ya go. Really, there was no hidden meaning to my post. I would suggest working on reading comprehension before posting again. Thanks.

[Nirvana Starseed]

Brady that is a quality of god. "all powerful"
It is not a definition of god.

have you seen anger management?
"I like tennis"
"thats a hobby, tell me who you are"
"I am good at"
"not your skills, tell me who you are"
"my name is...."
"thats your name, tell me, WHO YOU ARE."

"I don't know what i am supose to say"


Let me re-phrase the question here.

How is god all powerful? And mostly importantly. WHO IS GOD.
If we don't know what or who god is, other than a quality of all powerful. We cannot say much. We cannot say much about what god can do,because first we have to identity where what or who it is, before we talk about how it does what it does. And then why it does it.

You know logic. So you should understand.

[Nirvana Starseed]

Mark if you are using christianitys definition of god, you are not being very logical to start with. because christianitys god is illogical.


If you think christianitys god is logical. Explain why.

hahaha seeker would love this.

[Mark75]

Originally posted by Nirvana Starseed
Mark if you are using christianitys definition of god, you are not being very logical to start with. because christianitys god is illogical.

hahaha seeker would love this.

REALLY?! HOLY CRAP, STOP THE PRESSES!

Again, you demonstrate your lack of basic reading comprehension skills. I was answering the question by speaking hypothetically that if god did indeed exist, and that it was indeed all-powerful, that yes, of course he could create such a universe. It was the only answer that made sense under THAT DEFINITION OF GOD. I will write it very clearly for you: I DID NOT COME UP WITH THIS DEFINITION OF GOD. IT IS NOT MY PERSONAL DEFINITION. THIS IS A DEFINITION THAT HAS BEEN GIVEN TO HIM BY OTHERS. NOT ME.

You follow?

[AirRick101]

Hmmm...so you follow a rather new ageish definition of God? I take it you don't have the Christian doctrine as support for your arguments. I honestly don't know where to stand on this.

A little bit of Ramana Maharshi, huh? He had really deep insights, and endorsed the practice of asking "who am I" to oneself constantly until the point that our souls are liberated (enlightened) I am not there yet. I still use a car to drive to school and work for slightly above minimum wage.

[Nirvana Starseed]

Originally posted by mark
Again, you demonstrate your lack of basic reading comprehension skills. I was answering the question by speaking hypothetically that if god did indeed exist, and that it was indeed all-powerful, that yes, of course he could create such a universe. It was the only answer that made sense under THAT DEFINITION OF GOD. I will write it very clearly for you: I DID NOT COME UP WITH THIS DEFINITION OF GOD. IT IS NOT MY PERSONAL DEFINITION. THIS IS A DEFINITION THAT HAS BEEN GIVEN TO HIM BY OTHERS. NOT ME.

You follow?

Why the need for an attitude and typing in caps?

ok. First.

"him" you calling god a "he" why?

If it was hypothetical than what is the point? I can say if a purple monster was in my house right now I could conclude the following things about this. There is no purple monster, so it would be pretty pointless to make a whole bunch of stuff up about it.

But. Even if it was hypothetical. You still have not explained it properly. And that is my point to start with. You assume that people know about this "god" which you are basing everything on. You started without explaining the god, cause you believed that it was logical what you thought about it. Yet When I ask you question about it you say I was being hypothetical, but it changes nothing. And you have still not explained yourself.

"If god existed, If he was all powerful."
they are the words that you did not write, which were of vital importance to that post.
But still, you have to define what you are talking about when you say "god". And how this god could be all powerful. So it changes nothing if you are talking about producing reason and logic. these things you have to explain if you wish to claim it logical. It can still be hypothetical, but if you do not explain it, you cannot say it is logical.

[Mark75]

Originally posted by Nirvana Starseed+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Nirvana Starseed)</div>
Why the need for an attitude and typing in caps?
[/b]
Because you just don't get it and it’s pissing me off.
<!--QuoteBegin-Nirvana Starseed

ok. First.

\"him\" you calling god a \"he\" why?

WHAT THE FRICKIN' CRAP!? How is this even relevant? Wouldn’t you know, the one time I say ‘he’ instead of ‘it’, I get pounced.
Originally posted by Nirvana Starseed+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Nirvana Starseed)</div>
If it was hypothetical than what is the point? I can say if a purple monster was in my house right now I could conclude the following things about this. There is no purple monster, so it would be pretty pointless to make a whole bunch of stuff up about it.
[/b]
That was really dumb. Seriously. REALLY dumb. I had to answer hypothetically because it was a hypothetical question. The initial purpose (i.e., the point) of the thread was to understand the belief that god is all powerful. I’m pretty sure we’ve covered this.
<!--QuoteBegin-Nirvana Starseed

But. Even if it was hypothetical. You still have not explained it properly. And that is my point to start with. You assume that people know about this \"god\" which you are basing everything on.

You've gotta be kidding me. I think there's a pretty generally accepted idea of what god is. But you're right, Starboy, I shouldn't have assumed this. I should have known there were bound to be nit-pickers on this forum, and that they'd assault me with malformed posts whenever I failed to explain anything to the most minute of detail, regardless that it’s pretty common knowledge stuff. Except for the fact that I did give my definition of what god is.
Originally posted by Nirvana Starseed

You started without explaining the god, cause you believed that it was logical what you thought about it. Yet When I ask you question about it you say I was being hypothetical, but it changes nothing. And you have still not explained yourself.
\"If god existed, If he was all powerful.\"
they are the words that you did not write, which were of vital importance to that post.
But still, you have to define what you are talking about when you say \"god\"

only to you
Originally posted by Nirvana Starseed

And how this god could be all powerful. So it changes nothing if you are talking about producing reason and logic. these things you have to explain if you wish to claim it logical. It can still be hypothetical, but if you do not explain it, you cannot say it is logical.
This is not a discussion of how god could be all powerful if he existed. This is a discussion of IF god were really all-powerful as many who believe in him (that time I called it a him just out of spite) say, then would he be able to create a universe that ___. If you would like to discuss how it would be possible for god to have infinite power, feel free to start a thread about it. Personally, I don’t believe that if there were a god that it’d be all-powerful, because, as you say, it is illogical. As much as I appreciate your ineptitude and borderline illiteracy, why don’t you focus on the real questions instead of incessant nit picking and going off on tangents.

[kimpossible]

No. He doesn't follow. There is no accepted religion that defines their deity as anything other than omnipotent. He's just pulling shit (of the really stinky variety) out of his ass again. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a major deity.

[Nirvana Starseed]

Mark I think your emotions are getting the better of you, But I will say this one more time in detail in the possibility you may be able to understand, Then I will leave the issue alone.

This is what you wrote.

There's nothing but logic involved in answering this question. Since some of us seem to be on a shortage of it, I'll share some of my own.[/b]

here you write. I will share some of my own (logic) Thus you are claiming to present logic
in what you write next. Right?

So this means what you write next must be logical, But it isn't. This is why I have a problem with it.

next you write.

God = has infinite power.[/b]

here you should have said,
\"Assuming the following.\" god= has infinite power.

This still does not make sense from the beginning. This is precisely where religions have illogic in them themself. Infinite power cannot logically be attributed to anything. If you say \"just say hypothetically it can\" you are no longer going according to logic. No definition of god can EVER be attributed with infinite power. It does not make sense. I will explain why next.

Infinite power = the ability to do anything. [/b]
If you have the ability to do anything, you in effect do not have the ability to be limited in what you can do. How can you have it both ways? You can't. But there is a more important reason this does not make sense. You can never reach infinite. Because it is infinite! You can't say. My number is unlimited. Because it is not defining anything at all. You have to state what the number is if you wish to use it in a logical argument. In the same way you have to state how much power. Not just infinite power. That is once again not defining anything. because Infinite has no limit, you can in effect never reach infinite. So you have to define a limit or it is useless. Because that does not make sense saying infinite power.This is why it is not logical to attribute this quality to anything to start with. Because like I said it is something that cannot be defined.

next.

Everything = something and therefore
anything = something. [/b]

No problem with this part.

\"a universe with conscious minds but without suffering and without there being any problem with the complete absence of suffering\" = something.[/b]

Let me tell you something about this here.
Nothingness does not exist so it is not possible for it to exist right?
Therefore it does not equal something. Your last statement [anything=something] is not relevent to this one. Because This one is describing a situation. A situation is different to that which is \"something\". if a situation is illogical it cannot exist as something. Just as nothingness cannot exist as something.

However in this case I can see that it is possible and so it is \"something\" But this has nothing to do with your last statement that was suppose to back up this one.


Therefore god, being able to do anything, is able to do something, regardless of what that something is[/b]

Like I said, the situation has to be \"something\" (logical) first. For it to be able to exist as something.

And since \"creating a universe with conscious minds but without suffering and without there being any problem with the complete absence of suffering\" is something, god can do it.[/b]

What is amusing here is suffering is caused by nothing other than yourself. Suffering is your 'fault'. No-one can stop you suffering but yourself. "god" indeed has the ability to teach you how to not suffer, with your experience. So this can be acomplished, and is. People have to realize that it is up to themself to stop suffering. Not up to a entity to take suffering away from them. Only by learning the truth and consequences about it, will you free yourself from the result of "suffering"

When you understand this you can see that the entire thread is based on a misconception to begin with. About "god" and "suffering".

And as you can see there is only 1 sentence in the entire thing of yours mark, that is logical. The everything=something=anything statement.

The rest there is a problem with.
When you claim to share some logic. And Then I point out to you how I can tell it is not logic.....And you wonder why I do not agree with you. You have to realize that if you can not explain yourself logically. You cannot claim it to be logic. And I have told you why.

[InTheMoment]

Nirvana we need to talk. Seriously. :|

[Universal Mind]

Well, Nirvana did say that the Christian God is an illogical concept, and I applaud that point. He may have a very obscure religious belief, but at least it is more believable than that of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God. I put far fetched over completely disprovable any day.

[Mark75]

Originally posted by Nirvana Starseed
Mark I think your emotions are getting the better of you
Finally, we agree on something. You know, I could answer the entire contents of that post using only three keys: control, c, and v. I'll let you figure that one out (yeah right...). If you don't have anything good to argue, but still find it necessary to shoot off a post, a simple \"LOL STFU n00b!!1\" will suffice.

Originally posted by kimpossible+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kimpossible)</div>No. He doesn't follow. There is no accepted religion that defines their deity as anything other than omnipotent. He's just pulling shit (of the really stinky variety) out of his ass again. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a major deity.[/b]
What a coincidence, that exactly the impression I was getting...

<!--QuoteBegin-InTheMoment
Nirvana we need to talk. Seriously. :|
What'll that accomplish? It's not like anyone else has any reasonable answers.

[Nirvana Starseed]

a simple \"LOL STFU n00b!!1\" will suffice.[/b]
No it won't. That is not a logical argument and it does not make any of the logic I presented go away. Even if I was a n00b. I've been here longer than you bonehead. Don't make me give you a nickname, Only the lowest carry that shame.

Something I want to mention here.
Keep in mind that I only casually insult (as I see fit) those that have no hope of reaching any understanding. This is even more terrible for them. As it does not matter so much when they are being this way, what I call them. I think it is fitting humour well placed. When not taken too seriously. Even as an inside joke. These are not the kind of people I am concerntrating on helping, so they are not my concern. Until they show any sign of attempting to get themself out of their hole instead of digging it deeper. To concern myself with them is a waste of time. To insult them while perhaps not endorsed by those above me, is the approach I feel the need to take at this time.

Brady
If you feel the need to really talk to me we could go in the online chat sometime and it might be easier if you have some spare time at some point.

[Howie]

Yes.

[Nirvana Starseed]

Yeah.......

[Mark75]

Originally posted by Nirvana Starseed
Don't make me give you a nickname, Only the lowest carry that shame.

:shock: OH NOES!!1 NE THING BUT TAHT!!!11!

It seems you have already gone ahead and given me one anyway. Will wear my new nickname with pride (check my custom title).

[Rakkantekimusouka]

Speaking of custom titles, "Location: Zion" -- Jesús Christos Dios, Amenha, Staashiido, what's gotten into you!? You used to be so cool, and down-to-earth...ever since Awaken got here, you've been veritably possessed. :shock: :sad2:

I want the old Staashiido back! :damnit:

OT: Mark, I wuvs your Peach avy. She's my favorite character in SSBM, and the one I'm best with AND the first one I ever played with. :D

[Mark75]

Originally posted by Rakkantekimusouka
OT: Mark, I wuvs your Peach avy. She's my favorite character in SSBM, and the one I'm best with AND the first one I ever played with. :D

Heheh, thanks. I DESTROY with Peach on that game, as well as Mario Kart. Used to play Link, but he's just way too heavy for my style. I'm pretty good with Sheik and Marth also. I'm not bad with Pikachu, either. Can't wait to see what Super Princess Peach for DS will be like.

On another OT note, I noticed you'd mentioned Maddox in another thread. You're a fan? I know I am, he's frickin' awsome!


... Oh yeah, and uhh.. god 'n' stuff.

[Nirvana Starseed]

Originally posted by bonehead
Will wear my new nickname with pride (check my custom title).
heh, was not expecting you to do that. But I really wish kim would put her custom title numbass.

I post a gun in my sig and you post a bigger one. :sweat1:

[spoon]

Originally posted by nirvana
What is amusing here is suffering is caused by nothing other than yourself. Suffering is your 'fault'. No-one can stop you suffering but yourself. Yeah thats right, all those people suffering as a result of those recent natural disasters should have known better. All those kids in africa with aids should just get a positive attitude and their suffering will go away. All those rape victims should stop complaining, they didn't really suffer - they just think they did. You're right, that is kind of amusing isn't it.

\"god\" indeed has the ability to teach you how to not suffer, with your experience.[/b]I'm wondering - what exactly is your idea of god? I know it is not an orthodox one, but how does god fit into this statement? If you're saying your experience teaches you not to suffer, what does god have to do with it?

-spoon

[AirRick101]

Well, those unfortunate people can't really do anything about their suffering as it happens. But it's their choice to continue making something of it long after it is over. Not to say that would stay a part of them, that suffering is terrible and does have long-term effects.

Sometimes, suffering can shed lights on someone's life and have a beneficial effects, but suffering can also go deeply felt and the person can learn nothing from it. It's called learning from mistakes or not.

And in reverence to the original question of the thread, I still challenge that God could have created a world without suffering if he was God. But since things are a way that we cannot change, there's nothing left to do to improve things than to understand the context we work with.

[Nirvana Starseed]

Spoon if you want to know what I think about it, or do not understand something, or would like to hear from me in general, less of a sarcastic attitude would help.

I will explain this later when I have time.

[sephiroth clock]

No

From a technical standpoint god is not "infinetly powerful". Because he cannot create a universe in which there is no suffering at all, because this would destroy the dualist nature of experience in the universe. As stated before "we cannot experience tpure bliss unless there is something that is not pure bliss." It is impossible, and even god cannot find a way around this. So, if your trying to say that god is not all powerful then technically your right. But the universe and all of beings still function under these laws of bliss.

God could create a world without suffering if he wanted too. But no one could experience it and god wants to experience ourselves. We are god, and God is one, but in order for god to experience himself as one, he takes off an infinite amount of little parts to express individualism, and when they have completed their path, they will return to the oneness. But one could not stay in oneness forever, or else the dualism would be lost.

Once there was a little light, in a universe of pure light that wanted to experience himself, so god created darkness.

So god cannot work his way around dualism, but it's necessary.

[Howie]

Why does there have to be duality?
And technically speaking?? The all knowing all powerful God. Why could he not create a universe without suffering?
I understand the idea of suffering bringing light to not suffering.
I just don't follow the part about God. If we are God and God is us then in effect he is experiencing us, no?

Originally posted by sephiroth clock
NoFrom a technical standpoint god is not \"infinetly powerful\". Because he cannot create a universe in which there is no suffering at all, because this would destroy the dualist nature of experience in the universe.

Originally posted by sephiroth clock
God could create a world without suffering if he wanted too.
This seems very contradictory to me.
But I like this theory.
It is one of the few that works its way around God's scheme as not being merely a game.

with regards,
Howetzer

[sephiroth clock]

[quote]Why does there have to be duality?
And technically speaking?? The all knowing all powerful God. Why could he not create a universe without suffering?
I understand the idea of suffering bringing light to not suffering.
I just don't follow the part about God. If we are God and God is us then in effect he is experiencing us, no?


This seems very contradictory to me.
But I like this theory.
It is one of the few that works its way around God's scheme as not being merely a game.

with regards,
Howetzer

God could create a universe without suffering if he wanted too, but he can't do this, or it would not be in his best interest because this would stop him from experiencing himself. It would be like any other non dualist universe. A universe of all light, or all darkness. In these universes the light and darkness could not experience themselves without their contrasting partner.

It defies dualism which a necessary part of experience.

I will edit this post because I have to go, and answer the rest of your questions

[Nirvana Starseed]

Originally posted by spoon

Yeah thats right, all those people suffering as a result of those recent natural disasters should have known better.

It's alot more complicated than you make it out to be here.

All those kids in africa with aids should just get a positive attitude and their suffering will go away.[/b]

Here your confusing a positive attitude with an understanding about the situation.
All understanding will have the effect of conquering \"suffering\" which really has nothing to do with physical pain, But is something which people have great deal of difficulty with.
Suffering is a result of ignorance. Or \"missing the mark\" A positive attitude is something you have as a result of understanding. If you have a positive attitude yet are ignorant of the situation, your positivity will not last all that long when what you are doing is blatanly not working. In which case remaining positive is only delluding yourself. You must understand, through faith of the process of finding truth, (ask and you shall recieve princible) then understand that truth and you can increase your positivity without delusion, but with a knowing.

All those rape victims should stop complaining, they didn't really suffer - they just think they did. You're right, that is kind of amusing isn't it.[/b]

Ofcoure their suffering was real. But why they suffer you do not understand. I say Its amusing that you speak about this, when you do not understand the nature of suffering. And what it involves. This is demonstrated by your reference to suffering and rape victims. Being raped has nothing to do with suffering, believe it or not. But it is a circumstance which can be very difficult not to experience \"suffering\" given the experience and understanding needed to conquer the situation effectively. Most people do not have that level of experience. Else they would probally be similar to Jesus christ in nature.

I can think about some people who suffer because they did not win American idol. Yet I do not suffer that I did not win, but am glad that I am not a part of the competition.


\"god\" indeed has the ability to teach you how to not suffer, with your experience.I'm wondering - what exactly is your idea of god? I know it is not an orthodox one, but how does god fit into this statement? If you're saying your experience teaches you not to suffer, what does god have to do with it?[/b]

You do not understand what god is period. As jesus would say, you do not know the father. If you want me to explain it to you. I am afraid I cannot do it without your misconception.

[Howie]

Originally posted by sephiroth clock


God could create a universe without suffering if he wanted too, but he can't do this, or it would not be in his best interest because this would stop him from experiencing himself. It would be like any other non dualist universe. A universe of all light, or all darkness. In these universes the light and darkness could not experience themselves without their contrasting partner.

It defies dualism which a necessary part of experience.

I will edit this post because I have to go, and answer the rest of your questions

I beleive I understand where you are coming from sephiroth clock.
Are we like his pawns then? Or does he do this in effect to help us in the same manner he is helping himself?

[spoon]

Suffering:
You claimed that suffering is caused by nothing other than yourself, that it is your 'fault'. I gave three situations in which, to me at least, it is clear that suffering is not the fault of the individual: Natural disasters, Children with AIDS and Rape victims.

You failed to answer one, and below is my reasoning why your answer of the other two failed to demonstrate how suffering is the fault of the individual. Suffering can clearly not be written off as the "fault of the sufferer".


People suffering in natural disasters:
It's alot more complicated than you make it out to be here. [/b] Ok, then explain to me how people's suffering through natural disasters is their own fault.

Kids with aids:
All understanding will have the effect of conquering \"suffering\" which really has nothing to do with physical pain, But is something which people have great deal of difficulty with. [/b] Uh, no. Suffering through aids has a whole lot to do with pain. You can \"understand\" the disease you have all you want, but it still causes suffering. It is not your fault.

Suffering is a result of ignorance. Or \"missing the mark\" A positive attitude is something you have as a result of understanding. [/b] You've responded to two of my points, yet failed to address either. How is suffering caused through natural disasters cased by ignorance? How does the understanding of something like AIDS, or a stomach cancer for that matter, help in any way, shape or form with someone's suffering?

You must understand, through faith of the process of finding truth, (ask and you shall recieve princible) then understand that truth and you can increase your positivity without delusion, but with a knowing. [/b] How are you supposed to \"find truth\"? Are you saying here that if people just believed in the right truth (your truth i suppose? :roll:) they would cease to suffer?

Rape victims suffering:

Ofcoure their suffering was real. But why they suffer you do not understand.[/b] They suffer because someone forced themselves sexually on them. If you got pinned down and were sodomised by 10 big, burly men would you have suffered? Why? Because you got pinned down and sodomised. Nothing to do with your attitude.

I say Its amusing that you speak about this, when you do not understand the nature of suffering. And what it involves. [/b] You're right, I don't. I have never suffered in my life. The worst I've had to cope with is 3 broken bones. Yet I'm smart enough to know there's nothing funny about suffering caused by rape..

This is demonstrated by your reference to suffering and rape victims. Being raped has nothing to do with suffering, believe it or not. But it is a circumstance which can be very difficult not to experience \"suffering\" given the experience and understanding needed to conquer the situation effectively.[/b] Just out of interest, what level of experience and understanding do you believe is needed to not suffer through rape? How does rape not have anything to do with suffering? Are you seriously saying that, just because someone's not spiritually advanced enough - it's their own fault for suffering because they were raped?

Most people do not have that level of experience. Else they would probally be similar to Jesus christ in nature. [/b]Sorry, I must have missed the part where the 12 apostles gang-raped jesus. What does this have to do with anything?


your idea of god:
You do not understand what god is period. As jesus would say, you do not know the father. If you want me to explain it to you. I am afraid I cannot do it without your misconception. [/b] Dodging the question. What does god have to do with anything if it is experience that ' teaches you not to suffer'

-spoon

principle principle principle

[sephiroth clock]

I beleive I understand where you are coming from sephiroth clock.
Are we like his pawns then? Or does he do this in effect to help us in the same manner he is helping himself?

Yes.

We are god, but we cannot all experience ourselves as god at the same time, or else we would defy the dualist nature or our experience. This is why god (ourselves) must have conciusness experiencing itself as seperate from god. Even though in reality this is impossible we are all one with god all the time, we must have the experience of individualism to also experience oneness.

Therefore it is in Gods best interest for suffering (seperation from gods eternal bliss), to exsist. The varying levels between us and a master is the fact that we will suffer in this seperation, but the master will be joyful just knowing that pure bliss exsist.

But even the master, once he has experienced bliss in an infinite time, no time, must return from this bliss because of this dualism, and may even choose to recreate himself from the beginning again up to mastery. This is all you can do! and the joy of experience! Dualism is wonderful, and it allows allows for bliss! Without it there would be no bliss! So UniversalMind, god can't beat dualism, it is such a simple logical fact of the nature of experience, but he uses dualism to provide for us infinite bliss. Without this dualism no such bliss could exsist!

So in answer to your question, Yes, he could create a world without suffering but no one would be able to experience it as that because their would be no dualism. And no god could not just override this dualism and make no suffering and still have it be experienceable

No god cannot defy this dualist logic, but I don't feel that anyone has disproved or defied my god by saying that he is not all powerful in this situation.

Spoon I think I may be able to give you some direction.

[quote]Suffering:
You claimed that suffering is caused by nothing other than yourself, that it is your 'fault'. I gave three situations in which, to me at least, it is clear that suffering is not the fault of the individual: Natural disasters, Children with AIDS and Rape victims.

You failed to answer one, and below is my reasoning why your answer of the other two failed to demonstrate how suffering is the fault of the individual. Suffering can clearly not be written off as the \"fault of the sufferer\".


No matter how distant, unrelated, or unwanted suffering may seem it is ultimately caused by the victim. Suffering as described above is a necessary part of existence, and can be chosen by a soul willingly or unwillingly.

Willingly a soul might have chosen to incarnate in a body that might suffer in some way, to gain more empathy, to convince it to choose a better life in it's next incarnation.

Your will affects every vibration in the universe in ways that are too complex to map out, there are vibrational connections in the universe than than one billion fold of the internet. The difference between us and the master is that the master is in complete control of his experience. The master will never choose to experience suffering. Every fiber of their being concentrates their will into whatever goal they choose. We unfortunately have not attained this mastery of will. Whatever reality a master chooses to experience will be created, because their intentions are all confident and all focused.

[spoon]

No matter how distant, unrelated, or unwanted suffering may seem it is ultimately caused by the victim.[/b] I'd like you to show how suffering caused by natural disasters can be be caused by the sufferers of the disasters. How someone getting raped is caused, not by the rapist, but by the victim. It's all well and good to make this claim, but can it be backed up?

Suffering as described above is a necessary part of existence, and can be chosen by a soul willingly or unwillingly. [/b] Yet you say that \"the master\" is above this. Which is it? Is it a necessary part of existence, or can existence exist without suffering. If the master can 'choose not to experience suffering', why can't we do the same? Suffering obviously isn't a requirement for his/her/its existence.

Willingly a soul might have chosen to incarnate in a body that might suffer in some way, to gain more empathy, to convince it to choose a better life in it's next incarnation. [/b] This would require you to believe in re-incarnation, and I cant do that - mainly because it doesn't (and can't as far as I am concerned) account for the increasing population. But thats a whole nother topic.

[edited to add]
Dualism is wonderful, and it allows allows for bliss! Without it there would be no bliss! So UniversalMind, god can't beat dualism, it is such a simple logical fact of the nature of experience, but he uses dualism to provide for us infinite bliss. Without this dualism no such bliss could exsist! [/b] I don't think dualism claims that suffering is needed. Suffering would not be a requirement for bliss, not-bliss would be the requirement. Not-bliss is a far cry from full blown suffering. To demonstrate this point: do you need to get kicked in the nuts to experience an orgasm? Do you need to listen to nails scraping down a blackboard (or <insert worst noise here>) to experience music? No, you need to be in a state of not-orgasm to appreciate the change, and you need to have been listening to something that is not-music. To be in a state of not-bliss does not imply that you are suffering.


-spoon

[Universal Mind]

Sephiroth Clock, thank you for giving a direct answer to my question and then explaining it. I don't believe in the God you are talking about, but I also cannot point out a direct contradiction in the concept of him. I have been trying to get somebody to explain to me how a being can be simultaneously omnipotent and omnibenevolent while allowing the existence of suffering. You do not believe in a God that is omnipotent, so I guess you can't explain it to me, but I enjoyed reading what you wrote and find your ideas interesting.

If you haven't already, I recommend you read The Book by Alan Watts. It talks about the idea that everything is God and how God is playing a game of hide and seek with himself, revealing to himself over and over in all of his forms at different times that he is God. In other words, you will one day realize that you are God and say, "Oh yeah... I remember deliberately playing this game with myself."

[eXistenZ]

[b]Yes, he can create a universe without suffering.

But he can choose of not doing this. Why? It depends on the theological standpoint.

According to some interpretation of Mormonism, one might say that God chose to create the human beings (thus the suffering) to feel through themselves what suffering and human evolution can be. Without this, God would be less than all-powerful and through this the human is raised to higher levels (where no suffering is involved); suffering is just a stage fo the human evolution, necessary to get the final state.

In a larger Christian perspective, suffering is necessary for a higher reward (Paradise). In this perspective, suffering can even be considered as a gift through which one experiences the existence of God.

All these perspectives are attempts to provide a meaning to suffering (and sometimes their deep meanings is stretched to avoid any factual intervention to fight suffering). They are quite weak when we see deep and unjust suffering for innocent people.

eXistenZ

[Howie]

Very interesting topic. I never approached it from this angle!

*** Please. When quoting someone put there name! :)
- ex [quote]
It would make things much more clear. Moreover when paragraphs are separated into fragments

[Nirvana Starseed]

Originally posted by spoon
I'd like you to show how suffering caused by natural disasters can be be caused by the sufferers of the disasters. How someone getting raped is caused, not by the rapist, but by the victim. It's all well and good to make this claim, but can it be backed up?

Spoon I'd like you to show me how suffering is caused by natural disasters, and not by the individuals perception facing the circumstance. How someone getting raped is caused by the circumstance and not by the individual being raped. It's all well and good to make the claim suffering is caused by outside circumstances out of the individuals control. But can you "back up this claim" as you put it?

Here is an example of how the individual is in control of the perception.
someone buys a chocolate cake for themself for breakfast. Then it drops on the floor. And the dogs gets it. They are really angry and upset about it. And they suffer the circumstance of the event.

Another individual buys a chocolate cake for breakfast. It also drops on the floor and the dog eats it. This person laughs. While the other person suffered emotional negativity.

As a result you can see the 2 reactions are not at all based on circumstance, but on the individuals reaction and perception of the circumstance.

If at this small degree this rule applies. Then it must also apply to larger degrees such as pain thresholds, perception of time, natural disasters etc.

another example. Someones house burning down. 2 people can react totally differently. One person could become really depressed about losing their house and end up killing themself because of their grief. While another person starts their life a new and ends up in a better situation then before, and is ultimately alot happer than before his house burnt down because of his new found sparked motivation to succeed and overcome what has happened. His drive was increased and he learnt alot of things from it. He did not feel sorry for himself and constantly see himself as a victim, like the other person. And he did not complain to others about what had happened. He picked himself up and saw an opportunity to do something and to realize a few things about what had happened.While the other person let it drag him down and became very depressed.

How can you explain this? If suffering is a result of circumstance?

I can think of alot more obvious examples where suffering is clearly individuals perception yet this is only 1 aspect of the subject "suffering".

I will admit that circumstances and "suffering" are used to teach individuals and develop certain qualities within themself. And is a vital part of the evolution of oneself. This is another aspect of the subject "suffering" which we are not talking about here. Obviously suffering is real to those who do not have the ability or understanding to overcome it.

[InTheMoment]

Originally posted by Nirvana
As a result you can see the 2 reactions are not at all based on circumstance, but on the individuals reaction and perception of the circumstance.

If at this small degree this rule applies. Then it must also apply to larger degrees such as pain thresholds, perception of time, natural disasters etc.

What if I tied you up and made you watch me skull fuck your mother to death, while spitting in your face during the whole ordeal? Could you use your \"enlightened\" stance to just laugh it off and not suffer? :roll:

I can think of alot more obvious examples where suffering is clearly individuals perception yet this is only 1 aspect of the subject \"suffering\". [/b]
Yah, I could think of a lot more obvious examples where suffering is clearly NOT dependant on an individuals perception...but what's the point?

[kimpossible]

Originally posted by nirvanawhatever

Another individual buys a chocolate cake for breakfast. It also drops on the floor and the dog eats it. This person laughs. While the other person suffered emotional negativity.


And their dog dies a horrible painful death. Looks like some suffering caused by dropping the cake on the floor, and then laughing, to me.

[Howie]

Originally posted by InTheMoment

What if I tied you up and made you watch me skull fuck your mother to death, while spitting in your face during the whole ordeal? Could you use your \"enlightened\" stance to just laugh it off and not suffer? Rolling Eyes

You are a real class act ITM.
You are a disgrace to humanity and I feel I have lowered my standard to even discuss topics with you.
I am through! I would hope others would follow suite.

[Nirvana Starseed]

Originally posted by In The Moment
What if I tied you up and made you watch me skull fuck your mother to death, while spitting in your face during the whole ordeal? Could you use your \"enlightened\" stance to just laugh it off and not suffer?

After Jesus was nailed to the cross. From the actions of others condeming him, he merely said "forgive them, they know not what they are doing" Before he died he was pretty glad about what he had achieved. And what he had taught. Any pain or suffering did not compare to it.

How would your actions be any exception here? You do not have any power over me, except that which is givin to you from above, but you cannot hurt me, or anyone unless they give you the power to do so. You can not make me feel anything that I have not choosen of myself to feel.

It doesn't matter how difficult it is for you to accept. My joy and everyone elses who understands, do not come from situations, circumstances of the world, and actions of other people, but from the light of our own conscience.

[kimpossible]

Originally posted by Howetzer


You are a real class act ITM.
You are a disgrace to humanity and I feel I have lowered my standard to even discuss topics with you.
I am through! I would hope others would follow suite.[/size]

I think he has a point. Which Nirvana then dodged.

[sephiroth clock]

What if I tied you up and made you watch me skull fuck your mother to death, while spitting in your face during the whole ordeal? Could you use your \"enlightened\" stance to just laugh it off and not suffer?[/b]

A person who had the correct will and attitude would never draw that type of situation to himself. Not all but some of the ways that we suffer have to do with the way we affect others around us.

No one, not you, would ever do the above to the kindest man in the world. The kindest, most generous, and honest man in the world would melt you in any action of hate a person would try to complete against him, no one could ever do such a thing.

And the truth is, although none of us are at that level, if an enlightened being was forced to the above, even though this would never happen, he would be able to remain joyful no matter what happened.

[sephiroth clock]

On a more general note in this debate.

We need to change our view of perfection in the universe. A universe without suffering is a universe that would not be in our best interest. This is because with only perfection and bliss with god, we lose all the joy in creating ourselves, something only possible through dualism.

That is the joy of the universe, and the only thing you can do! The only thing you can do is to create yourself again and again, take an infinite amount of paths, build yourself from the bottom to enlightenment again and again.

But without beginning in seperation, we cannot know the true joy of joining in union with god.

This is the real point of joy. So it is not in god's (our) best interest to have a non-dualist universe, without suffering. It would be no different than a universe with only suffering. Neither could know itself without relationship.

God cannot override this dualism, and create no suffering, and rid the universe of the need to have dualism!

Because with this dualism, seperation and union, we create the greatest joy their is for us to experience, which is the creation and experience of self.

So we (god) have some of us experience seperation from god (even though this is impossible) so that others can know the bliss of being in union with god. And those who have been seperated will experience the true joy of creating themselves and rejoining with god.

At any time, anyone can rejoin with god, or seperate themselves (in experience) to allow themselves to experience recreating their selves and rejoining in union with god.

This is all we can do! All there is to do!

[kimpossible]

Some people live in a total fantasy world...

[bradybaker]

Originally posted by sephiroth clock
A universe without suffering is a universe that would not be in our best interest. This is because with only perfection and bliss with god, we lose all the joy in creating ourselves, something only possible through dualism.
Still not grasping the concept...an all-powerful being could change this law of reality.

[spoon]

Reply to nirvana
Spoon I'd like you to show me how suffering is caused by natural disasters, and not by the individuals perception facing the circumstance. [/b] Take the recent tsunami. A mothers child was ripped from her arms in a torrent of water, which was not under her control. You're right, she should just look on the sunny side shouldn't she. :roll:

How someone getting raped is caused by the circumstance and not by the individual being raped.[/b] ...Do I really have to demonstrate how being pinned down and gang raped is caused by the rapers? What should someone do, just choose not to care? Suffering as a cause of rape is perfectly natural. Not only are to saying its the victims fault they were raped, but now they're a bad person for not rising above it? This is an abhorrent worldview.

It's all well and good to make the claim suffering is caused by outside circumstances out of the individuals control. But can you \"back up this claim\" as you put it? [/b] Can and did. Now, would you like to show me how natural disasters are caused by individuals? Would you like to show me how rape is caused by the victim? You can say \"they could choose not to suffer\" all you want - but it does not change the fact that, as they are normal human beings, they are suffering as a perfectly natural result to a fucked up circumstance.

dog eating cake and house burning down example
How can you explain this? If suffering is a result of circumstance? [/b]
In both of these examples something bad happened, the loss of a cake or the loss of a house. They suffer as a result of it, but choose not to wallow in self pity. This is a valid reaction to suffering, and so is choosing to wallow in self pity. But you can't hide from the fact that both of these things are a reaction to suffering. as you put it in the house example (emphasis mine):

And he did not complain to others about what had happened. He picked himself up....[/b]Suffering is a result of circumstance, how that suffering takes shape and impacts on you is a result of the individual.

In response to ITM's question:
After Jesus was nailed to the cross. From the actions of others condeming him, he merely said \"forgive them, they know not what they are doing\" Before he died he was pretty glad about what he had achieved.[/b] Aside from completely dodging ITM's question, this is incorrect. At the end jesus cried \"Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?\", that is to say \"Father, why have you forsaken me\". Because he was suffering. So, overall, not a very good dodge - but a dodge nonetheless.

Reply to Sephiroth:
In response to ITM's question:
No one, not you, would ever do the above to the kindest man in the world. The kindest, most generous, and honest man in the world would melt you in any action of hate a person would try to complete against him, no one could ever do such a thing. [/b]Ghandi got shot. Bad things happen to good people

And the truth is, although none of us are at that level, if an enlightened being was forced to the above, even though this would never happen, he would be able to remain joyful no matter what happened. [/b] Then he is not enlightened. I want no part of enlightenment that would mean I enjoy my mother being skullfucked in front of me.

We need to change our view of perfection in the universe. A universe without suffering is a universe that would not be in our best interest. This is because with only perfection and bliss with god, we lose all the joy in creating ourselves, something only possible through dualism. [/b] This does not mean there has to be suffering, as I already said:

don't think dualism claims that suffering is needed. Suffering would not be a requirement for bliss, not-bliss would be the requirement. Not-bliss is a far cry from full blown suffering. To demonstrate this point: do you need to get kicked in the nuts to experience an orgasm? Do you need to listen to nails scraping down a blackboard (or <insert worst noise here>) to experience music? No, you need to be in a state of not-orgasm to appreciate the change, and you need to have been listening to something that is not-music. To be in a state of not-bliss does not imply that you are suffering. [/b]

-spoon

[sephiroth clock]

Spoon

Ghandi got shot. Bad things happen to good people.

Gandhi may have chosen to experience that so that he could understand complete defenselessness, empathy, there are many reasons why a soul chooses to experience suffering, the right kinds can help us to grow and learn.

And the truth is, although none of us are at that level, if an enlightened being was forced to the above, even though this would never happen, he would be able to remain joyful no matter what happened.

Then he is not enlightened. I want no part of enlightenment that would mean I enjoy my mother being skullfucked in front of me.

You wouldn't take joy in that specific event. But any event that could take place you, you would still be impervious to suffering. You don't have to enjoy or take joy in the fact that she is being skullfucked in front of you, just be joyful no matter what the circumstance. You can feel compassion and bliss simultaneosly.

We need to change our view of perfection in the universe. A universe without suffering is a universe that would not be in our best interest. This is because with only perfection and bliss with god, we lose all the joy in creating ourselves, something only possible through dualism. This does not mean there has to be suffering, as I already said:

don't think dualism claims that suffering is needed. Suffering would not be a requirement for bliss, not-bliss would be the requirement. Not-bliss is a far cry from full blown suffering. To demonstrate this point: do you need to get kicked in the nuts to experience an orgasm? Do you need to listen to nails scraping down a blackboard (or <insert worst noise here>) to experience music? No, you need to be in a state of not-orgasm to appreciate the change, and you need to have been listening to something that is not-music. To be in a state of not-bliss does not imply that you are suffering.

When I collect my thoughts I will answer you later. The only thought I have now is that dualism must mean equal suffering and bliss on both sides.

-spoon[/quote]

Bradybaker

sephiroth clock wrote:
A universe without suffering is a universe that would not be in our best interest. This is because with only perfection and bliss with god, we lose all the joy in creating ourselves, something only possible through dualism.

Still not grasping the concept...an all-powerful being could change this law of reality.

I stated in my thread that I did not believe that god could change this law of reality. So from a technical standpoint, my concept of god is a god that is not omnipotent, and all powerful.

[kimpossible]

So, do you also worship tables, desklamps, ladybugs, and fence boards? I think you should - they're not omnipotent either.

[sephiroth clock]

Originally posted by kimpossible
So, do you also worship tables, desklamps, ladybugs, and fence boards? I think you should - they're not omnipotent either.

:? I'm not sure you understood my use of technical standpoint. Please read my earlier threads, your comment is not useful at all. I wont argue it, but obviously there is a difference don't you think between my concept of the two things.


Some people live in a total fantasy world... [/b]

I know, I way over do myself sometimes when quoting conversations with god :oops: I just like that book so much and it's so logical, it really should be shared.

I still agree with what I said, perhaps not in such "enthusiastic" text for yall.

If Paramanhansa Yogananda was living in a total fantasy world, he was a man much happier than you.


I've decided to give up bothering whether or not I can be disproved. Debating is difficult because what I know in my head is hard to express in words, and often times what I say I know can be backed up but I can't find the right way to back it up. bluop

[InTheMoment]

Originally posted by Sephiroth
This is the real point of joy. So it is not in god's (our) best interest to have a non-dualist universe, without suffering. It would be no different than a universe with only suffering. Neither could know itself without relationship.
As Spoon stated earlier, why does their have to be suffering in order to have bliss? You could still have your \"dualist\" universe without suffering. There could be bliss and an absence of bliss (which doesn't have to be suffering), yet god chooses to allow suffering to exist.

Originally posted by Sephiroth+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sephiroth)</div>And the truth is, although none of us are at that level, if an enlightened being was forced to the above, even though this would never happen, he would be able to remain joyful no matter what happened.[/b]
And if Superman got hit by a bus, he would be able to brush it off and move on with little incident.

I'm just not convinced that someone (no matter how enlightened they may think they are) could remain joyful through such an ordeal, as the one that I illustrated earlier. If someone could remain joyful through such a situation, then they are just as demented as the person committing the atrocity.

<!--QuoteBegin-Nirvana
It doesn't matter how difficult it is for you to accept. My joy and everyone elses who understands, do not come from situations, circumstances of the world, and actions of other people, but from the light of our own conscience.
That is utter bullshit...you can't honestly say that if my aformentioned scenario took place, you wouldn't be emotionally devastated. I mean c'mon...you get all flustered and resort to name calling when someone challenges your skewed interpretation of the "truth." I guess, during those moments, your conscience light was set on dim. :roll:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PS - and to those offended by choice of verbiage in illustrating my point..."Boo Fucking Hoo!" :finger:

[eXistenZ]

InTheMoment: you can make your point with more intelligent words than those that you wrote in a previous post.

We don't know the reactions of those who are reading our posts, we don't know who is the mother of those who read our posts: why one should use such words and images?

This is not a place where none is responsible: everyone is responsible more than offline for what one says, because we don't know the counterpart's sensibility and we should care more for what we write. The fact that there is a disclaimer at the access of the forum is not a justifications of what we write here.

One can be argumentatively direct and challenging without being unpolite or violent.

eXistenZ

[InTheMoment]

[quote][b]
InTheMoment: you can make your point with more intelligent words than those that you wrote in a previous post.
I could have, but the loss of imagery wouldn't have been worth it.

[eXistenZ]

Originally posted by InTheMoment

I could have, but the loss of imagery wouldn't have been worth it.


I know, sometimes a simple "Sorry guys" is hard to write.

eXistenZ

[InTheMoment]

[quote]


I know, sometimes a simple "Sorry guys" is hard to write.

eXistenZ
Call it what you like.

[sephiroth clock]

I have my research now I will transcribe from Conversations with God about why suffering exsists. I am pulling all the excerpts from suffering verbatum from the Conversations with God triology book set.

[size=18]God is denoted in italicized text.

The author in denoted in this text.

I am denoted in this text.

I have highlighted the most important pieces of text in this text.

Some of may be wrongly italicized but this process was very tedious, you will still have an easy feel for what is important and who is talking. Just remember the author (Neale Donald Walsch) is in regular text, talking to god.

But even Jesus healed the sick. Why would he heal them if their condition was so "perfect"?

Jesus did not heal those he healed because he saw their condition as imperfect. He healed those he healed because he saw those souls asking for healing as part of their process. He saw the perfection of the process. He recognized and understood the soul's intention. Had Jesus felt that all illness, mental or physical, represented imperfection, would he not have simply healed everyone on this planet, all at once? Do you doubt that he could do this?

No. I believe he could have.

Good. Then the mind begs to know: Why did he not do it? Why would the Christ choose to have some suffer, and others be healed? For that matter, why does gGod allow any suffering at anytime? This question has been asked before, and the answer remains the same. There is perfection in the process--and all life arises out of choice. It is not appropriate to interfere with choice, nor to question it. It is particularly inappropriate to condemn it.What is appropriate is to observe it, and then to do whatever might be done to assist the soul in seeking and making a higher choice.

Be watchful, therefore, of the choices of others, but not judgmental. Know that their choice is perfect for them in this moment now--yet stand ready to assist themshould the moment come when they seek a newer choice, a different choice--a higher choice.

Move into communion with the souls of others, and their purpose, their intention, will be clear to you. This is what Jesus did with those he healed--and with all those whose lives he touched. Jesus healed all those who came to him, or sent others to him supplicating for them. He did not perform a random healing. To have done so would have been to violate a sacred Law of the Universe:
Allow each soul to walk its path

But does that mean we must not help anyone without being asked? Surely not, or we would never be able to help the starving children of India, or the tortured masses of Africa, or the poor, or the downtrodden anywhere. All humanitarian effort would be lost, all charity forbidden. Must we wait for an individual to cry out to us in desperation, or for a nation of people to plead for help, before we are allowed to do what is obviously right?

You see, the question answers itself. If a thing is obviously right, do it. But remember to excercise extreme judgment regarding what you call "right" and "wrong." A thing is only right or wrong because you say it is. A thing is not right or wrong intrinsically.
It isn't?

"Rightness" or "wrongness" is not an intrinsic condition, it is a subjective judgment in a personal value system./ By your subjective judgments do you create your Self--by your personal values do you determine and demonstrate Who You Are.

The world exists excatly as it that you may make these judgments. If the world existed in perfect condition, your life process of Self creation would be terminated. It would end. A lawyer's career would end tomorrow were there no more litigation. A doctor's career would end tomorrow were there no more ilness. A philosopher's career would end tomorrow were there no more questions.

And God's career would end tomorrow were there no more problems!

Precisely. You have put it perfectly. We, all of us, would be through creating were there nothing more to create. We, all of us, have a vested interest in keeping the game going. Much as we all say we would like to solve all the problems, we dare not solve all the problems, or there will be nothing left for us to do.

Your industrial-military complex understands this very well. That is why it opposes mightily any attempt to install a war-no-more goverment--anywhere.

Your medical establishment understands this, too. That is why it staunchly opposes--it must, it has to for its own survival--any new miracle drug or cure--to say nothing of the possibility of miracles themselves.

Your religious community also holds this clarity. That is why it attacks uniformly any definition of God which does not include fear, judgment and retribution, and any definition of Self which does not include their own idea of the only path to God.

If I say to you, you are GOd--where does that leave religion? If I say to you, you are healed, where does that leave science, and medicine? IF I say to you, you shall live in peace, where does that leave the peacemakers? If I say to you, the world is fixed--where does that leave the world?

What, now, of plumbers?

THe world is filled with essentially two kinds of people: those who give you things you want, and those who fix things. In a sense, even those who simply give you things you want--the butchers, the bakers, the candlestick makers--are also fixers. For to have a desire for something is often to have a need for it. That is why addicts are said to need a fix. Be careful, therefore, that desire not become an addiction.

Are you saying the world will always have problems? Are you saying that you actually want it that way?

I am saying that the world exists the way it exists--just as a snowflake exists the way it exists-- quite by deisgn. You have created it that way--just as you have created your life exactly as it is. I want what you want. The day you really want an end to hunger, there will be no more hunger. I have given you all the resources with which to do that. YOu have all the tools with which to make that choice. You have not made it. Not because you cannot make it. The world could end world hunger tomorrow. You choose not to make it.

Here ends the first section.
I will now skip further to an issue adressing the concious will to suffer

But I did not choose to get hit by that truck! I did not choose to get mugged by that robber, or raped by that maniac. People could say that. There are people in the world who could say that.

You are all at root cause for the conditions which exist which create in the robber the desire, or the perceived need, to steal. You have all created the consciousness which makes rape possible. It is when you see in yourself that which caused the crime that you begin, at last, to heal the condition from which it sprang.

Feed your hungry, give dignity to your poor. Grant opportunity to you less fortunate. End the prejudice which keeps masses huddled and angry, with little promise of a better tommorow. Put away your pointless taboos and restrictions upon sexual energy--rather, help others to truly understand its wonder, and to channel it properly. Do these things and you will go a long way toward ending robbery and rape forever.

As for the so-called "accident"--the truck coming around the bend, the brick falling from the sky--learn to greet each such incident as a small part of a larger mosaic. You have come here to work out an individual plan for you own salvation. Yet salvation does not mean saving yourself from the snares of the devil. There is no such thing as the devil, and hell does not exist. YOu are saving youself from the oblivion of non realiazation.

Accidents happen because they do. Certain elements of the life process have come together in a particular way at a particular time, with particular results--results which you choose to call unfortunate, for you own particular resons. Yet they may not be unfortunate at all given the agenda of you soul.

[u]I tell you this: There is no coincedence, and nothing happens by "accident." Each event and adventure is called to your Self by your Self in order that you might create and experience Who You Really Are. All true Masters know this. That is why mystic Masters remain unperturbed in the face of the worst experience of life (as you would define them).[/u

The great teachers of your Christian religion understand this. They know that Jesus was not perturbed by the crucifixion, but expected it. He could have walked away, but he did not. He could have stopped the process at any point. He had that power. Yet he did not. He allowed himself to be crucified in order that he might stand as man's eternal salvation. Look, he said, at what I can do. Look at what is true. And know that thesee things, and more, shall you also do. For have I not said, ye are god? Yet you do not believe me. If you cannot, then, believe in yourself, believe in me.

Such was Jesus' compassion that he begged for a way--and created it--to so impact the world that all might come to heaven (Self realization)-- if in no other way, then through him. For he defeated misery, and death. And so might you.

The grandest teaching of Christ was not that you shall have evarlasting life--but that you do; not that you shall have brotherhood in God, but that you do;not that you shall have whatever you request but that you do.

All that is required is to know this. For you are the creator of your reality, and life can show up no other way for you than that way in which you think it will.

You think it into being. This if the first step in creation. God the Father is though. Your thought is the parent which gives birth to all things.

This is from Conversations with God, Book One, by Neal Donald Walsch. I will type another excerpt at a later time.

[kimpossible]

You know, there are some very good medications for those having "conversations with god"... You can get better!

[Ex Nine]

[i][size=24]I can't stop talking.

[sephiroth clock]

[quote][i][size=24]I can't stop talking.

ohh god rants on and on, for hundreds of pages :mrgreen:

[Nirvana Starseed]

Originally posted by spoon+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(spoon)</div>Take the recent tsunami. A mothers child was ripped from her arms in a torrent of water, which was not under her control. You're right, she should just look on the sunny side shouldn't she.[/b]

I never said anything about looking on the sunny side of this situation. Let me put it in a context you might be able to understand a little better. Do you think god would suffer? No god has the ability not to suffer in any circumstance. No matter what you do to god. Hence it is also possible for us to obtain the ability not to suffer in certain circumstances. Your inability to understand how this could be done tells me you are a long way to understanding what the cause of suffering actually is.


Originally posted by spoon+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(spoon)</div>Do I really have to demonstrate how being pinned down and gang raped is caused by the rapers?[/b]

Thats not what I asked you to explain.....I asked you to explain how suffering is not caused by the individual. I never asked you to explain who would be the rapers.

Originally posted by spoon
What should someone do, just choose not to care?

I didn't say thats how you overcome suffering. This is your attempt to understand how it is done. Which is not entirely accurate.

Originally posted by spoon
Suffering as a cause of rape is perfectly natural. Not only are to saying its the victims fault they were raped, but now they're a bad person for not rising above it? This is an abhorrent worldview.

I never mentioned that they were a bad person for not overcoming suffering. I'm also not saying its the victims fault they are being raped. I don't know where you got this idea. Not from me.

Originally posted by spoon
Now, would you like to show me how natural disasters are caused by individuals?

I never claimed that individuals caused natural disasters.

Originally posted by spoon
Would you like to show me how rape is caused by the victim?

I also never claimed this. Did you read the right post?

<!--QuoteBegin-spoon@
but it does not change the fact that, as they are normal human beings, they are suffering as a perfectly natural result to a fucked up circumstance.

Whatever is supose to be the potential of a normal human being has nothing to do with what is possible if desired. You place limitations on what can be done.

<!--QuoteBegin-spoon
dog eating cake and house burning down example
In both of these examples something bad happened, the loss of a cake or the loss of a house. They suffer as a result of it

You make the judgment that they suffered, and that it was a bad event. Just because he lost a chocolate cake, does not mean that he suffered. If everyone suffers equally in situations, how do you explain different reactions of suffering, to the same circumstances. You did not explain it at all.

[Awaken4e1]

If there were no suffering, we would all burn our tongues off, from eating food that is to hot... because we would never learn from the suffering of having a burnt tongue, then we would not talk to any one.

[Ex Nine]

Originally posted by Awaken4e1
If there were no suffering, we would all burn our tongues off, from eating food that is to hot... because we would never learn from the suffering of having a burnt tongue, then we would not talk to any one.


We need burnt tongues in order talk to one another?

You're a robot. You have to be a total robot in order to say something like that. Someone would have to literally program you to say something so senseless.

You were programmed, Awaken. The parameters for your imagination were laid down long ago. You have no thinking capabilities except for what your programmer commanded you to think.

[Leo Volont]

One of the best Thinkers still being published is Swami Vivekananda of the late 19th and early 20th Century who furtunately did not live long enoug for his collected writings to become too stuff with irrelevancies... he died while he was still interesting.

And he remarked somewhere, as he was always very discoursive (writing without an editor does that), that althought problems would become materially less serious, people would always find something to worry about. There would be an "etherialization" of Stress. As Life became Better, people would continuously raise their Standards.

In short, THE PERFECTION OF CIVILIZATION requires that people always continue to worry. Though as perfection moves forward, the worries seem increasingly trivial, by previous standards.

It brings to mind the considerations that appeared at the height of Catholic Civiliation where the Scholarhip would publish lenghty tomes on subjects such as 'how many angels can fit upon the head of a pin'. Now, Western Civilization has an Aids Epidemic and a Policy of Unalateral War... we are obviously degenerated in what we once already had a pretty good handle on.

Anyway, from what Vivekananda had said, and from what I believe, who, afterall, lived twice the life of Vivekananda, Perfection is not static, and that people will always have to retain a certain amount of Stress in order to continue to achieve the Best that Can Be.

[Mark75]

That's interesting, but I don't see how it relates to the topic.

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by Mark75
That's interesting, but I don't see how it relates to the topic.

Suffering is Stress. Stress is Suffering. Perfection is not a static condition, but requires eternal attention to detail. Perfection requires Stress. Stress is Suffering.

This was the Innovation that Christ's Teachings had over Stoicism in the West and Buddhism in the East (virtually the same philsophies). Christ insisted that Moral Perfection required effort, stress and suffering. The Previous Philosophies endorsed escapism for the Wealthy Classes who could afford to 'get away from it all". Taoism endorces escapism for those who can afford to fly away to a Villa somewhere. But Perfection requires Work. For things to be as Good as they Can Be, there has got be Work and Suffering.

No, there is no Free Ride. A Universe without Suffering is a Universe where people learn increasingly how to foist the amounting problems onto other people. There will never be a "perfect" Universe, but the "Better" Universe will be one in which the Souls involved will be ever actively proactive in improving their lot. In this regard, Suffering must not only be accepted but sought out. Somebody has to want to do the Work, and Work is suffering... no matter how good the pay.

[ladylazarus]

There is not and there never has been evidence suggesting the existence of god.

[sephiroth clock]

Originally posted by ladylazarus
There is not and there never has been evidence suggesting the existence of god.

thank you? :P

[Mark75]

Originally posted by Leo Volont


Suffering is stress. *Stress is suffering. *Perfection is not a static condition, but requires eternal attention to detail. *Perfection requires stress. *Stress is suffering. *

This was the innovation that Christ's teachings had over Stoicism in the west *and Buddhism in the east (virtually the same philsophies). * Christ insisted that moral perfection required effort, stress and suffering. *The previous philosophies endorsed escapism for the wealthy classes who could afford to 'get away from it all\". *Taoism endorces escapism for those who can afford to fly away to a villa somewhere. *But perfection requires work. *For things to be as good as they can be, there has got be work and suffering. *

No, there is no free ride. *A universe without suffering is a universe where people learn increasingly how to foist the amounting problems onto other people. * There will never be a \"perfect\" universe, but the \"better\" universe will be one in which the souls involved will be ever actively proactive in improving their lot. In this regard, suffering must not only be accepted but sought out. *Somebody has to want to do the work, and work is suffering... no matter how good the pay.

I'd agree with that, however, as the topic states, we are to assume for the purpose of the question that god is all powerful (ugh... I can hear Nirvana Starchseed typing a post already). If this were so, then he could merely use his power to remove suffering, and also remove any problems that would arise from the absence of suffering. This has been said many times in the thread. It is not even a question of \"would he\" or \"should he\". It is a question of \"could he\".

Originally posted by ladylazarus
There is not and there never has been evidence suggesting the existence of god.
I think most of us here realize that, however you must remember that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[ladylazarus]

I think most of us here realize that, however you must remember that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. [/b]

Evidence of absence is a logical impossibility. There is no more reason to believe in god than there is to believe in Santa.

[Howie]

Originally posted by ladylazarus
I think most of us here realize that, however you must remember that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Evidence of absence is a logical impossibility. There is no more reason to believe in god than there is to believe in Santa.[/b]

Stop It !!!! Santa is REAL! :nono:

[InTheMoment]

[quote]

Stop It !!!! Santa is REAL!
And he loves to loiter at the mall.

[Awaken4e1]

Originally posted by InTheMoment

And he loves to loiter at the mall.

Santa Clause = Satan Claws

[Mark75]

Originally posted by ladylazarus
I think most of us here realize that, however you must remember that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Evidence of absence is a logical impossibility. There is no more reason to believe in god than there is to believe in Santa.[/b]

So... you're saying that you have no evidence to back up your claim of the absence of god?

Not that that's true, anyway. I look to my left. I notice that there is no lion sitting on my desk. This evidence suggests that there is an absence of lions on my desk.

[Rakkantekimusouka]

Originally posted by Awaken4e1
Santa Clause = Satan Claws
Real original, Awaken...: :roll: Who d'ya think you are, Dana Carvey as the Church Lady? :eh:

[kimpossible]

Originally posted by Rakkantekimusouka

Real original, Awaken...: :roll: Who d'ya think you are, Dana Carvey as the Church Lady? :eh:

There are a couple of fairly major differences: The Church Lady character is funny, topical, on point, and intelligent.

"She" is also an obnoxious cow.

So Awaken and Church Lady share only a single trait.

[Universal Mind]

Originally posted by Awaken4e1


Santa Clause = Satan Claws

Woes, now that is interesting. I'm serious. It is always interesting to see a Christian denounce one of Christianity's creations. Do you really think Santa Claus is a Satanic concept? I must say that I went the first few years of my life thinking Christmas was all about Santa Claus. I think I was like seven years old before I learned that Christmas was Jesus' birthday. Do you think there was a plot formed in the war room of Hell that involved taking Jesus out of Christmas as much as possible?

You know that I am an atheist, but I have said for years that if I went back to Christianity in my adulthood, I would be an absolute fanatic. If the stuff is for real, it should be taken VERY seriously. I would be the preachiest Bible thumper the world has ever known. In such a state, I would actually believe that Santa Claus did remove Jesus far away from the center of Christmas, and I would never shut up about it. For real. But don't let this encourage you. I am still an atheist, and I think Christmas is obnoxious enough as it is. The less Jesus, the better.

[bradybaker]

Well, the modern image of Santa Claus has nothing to do with Religion...everything to do with Coca-Cola.

[Nirvana Starseed]

Originally posted by awaken
Santa Clause = Satan Claws

You can destroy anything beautiful by seeing satan under every rock.
Lets see how the enemies of jesus did this with the same type of warped definition.


"Our father which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, as it is in heaven, give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors, and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil, For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, For ever, Amen"

If the religious zealots were back in the days of jesus, here is what they would have done to this beautiful prayer.

"Our father (satan) which art in heaven, (hell) hallowed be thy name.(beelzebub-name of the devil) Thy kingdom (evil tyranny) come, thy will (will to evil) be done, as it is in heaven,(hell) give us this day our daily bread, (food of death) and forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors, (destory the law of moses) and lead us not into temptation, (avoid good) but deliver us from evil, (god)For thine (the devil) is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, For ever, Amen"

This was a very easy thing to do. Take something beautiful and destroy it through deciet. It is easier to curse the darkness than to light a candel.

[Alex D]

I could... if I had the right tools and some money.

God could... if he had the right tools, some money and existed in any way. :)

[ladylazarus]

Not that that's true, anyway. I look to my left. I notice that there is no lion sitting on my desk. This evidence suggests that there is an absence of lions on my desk. [/b]

When you look to your left and do not see a lion, that is not evidence of the absence of a lion, it is a lack of evidence of the existence of a lion. As I said before, evidence of absence is not a logical possibility. You cannot show that something doesn't exist, that's contradictory -- what you can show is that there is no evidence of something's existence.

However, if someone really wanted, they could probably find evidence on your desk that they would suggest indicates the presence of a lion. Dead skin, dog hairs, whatever. They would be incorrect, but they could still make an argument based on that "evidence," that goes along the lines of "well, the lion transcends space and time, but he still leaves behind some traces, as evidenced by this hair, these dead skin cells, etc." The exact same thing goes for god.

[Mark75]

Originally posted by ladylazarus
When you look to your left and do not see a lion, that is not evidence of the absence of a lion, it is a lack of evidence of the existence of a lion. As I said before, evidence of absence is not a logical possibility. You cannot show that something doesn't exist, that's contradictory -- what you can show is that there is no evidence of something's existence.
Wrong. -1 point.
I can show that something doesn't exist under certain conditions (e.g. on my desk). I can prove that a lion is not on my desk at a mere glance when we impose certain conditions. The conditions being that a lion is a large cat and that said cat is located on the desk in my room. Obviously due to the size of this cat and the fact that we know that lions reflect light, we could expect that it if it were there, quite simply, we would see it. The lion as defined here does not exist on my desk.

The problem with saying the same about god, as you acknowledged , is that such conditions are not clearly outlined, or that they are simply impossible to observe. God is everywhere, god can do anything, god is invisible unless he wants to be visible. How does one find evidence against this? Any evidence you find to disprove god's existence could simply be justified by these traits. E.g.: Your readings are inaccurate because god changed the results. (I’m paraphrasing Ex Nine on this next little bit) Therefore, burden of proof falls on the one making the claim that God exists. We can’t, under these conditions, prove that god does not exist, therefore it is up to the other side to prove that he does.

It's the equivalent of someone making the claim that Leprechauns exist.

[bradybaker]

Or the famous Green Humunculi argument.
Every human actually has a little creature called a Green Humunculi living in their head controlling what they do, not a brain.

But they need to keep their identities secret because chaos would erupt if they were found out.

So we open up someone's head or try to measure the inside in anyway, the green humunculi in the head of the observer(s) alters their perceptions so they just see, feel and measure a slimy, fleshy mass called a 'brain'.

Prove it wrong. I dare you.

[kimpossible]

Without clear definition, as Mark so rightly observes, disproving anything isn't possible. By the same token, proving anything is impossible without again having clear definition of what we're trying to arrive at.

The holdout of the funnymentalist [sic] is in keeping the definitions vague.

If we accept something as clearly defined, we can then make a statistical observation: There is a 99.99999999999[...] percent likelyhood that there is no lion on Mark's desk.

Which means that 999,999,9999,999,999,999 times out of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 that we check Mark's desk, there isn't going to be a lion there. Could there be a lion there? In practice, no. Statistically, it is disproven. But logic prevents that absolute statement.

God is the same way. There has never been a valid observation of god documented in the history of mankind. So statistically it's absolutely safe to say god doesn't exist. You can't disprove it logically, but you can safely go about your life knowing that it's not going to happen either.

[Mark75]

Oh, hey. Just an update, here. I just checked my desk and it turned out there was a lion there this time. Man I have crappy luck. Well, at least I don't have to worry for about another 999,999,999,999,999,998 times...

Originally posted by bradybaker
But they need to keep their identities secret because chaos would erupt if they were found out.
Ssshhh! You\'ll ruin everything, you fool!

[Nirvana Starseed]

Originally posted by brady+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(brady)</div>Or the famous Green Humunculi argument. Every human actually has a little creature called a Green Humunculi living in their head controlling what they do, not a brain. But they need to keep their identities secret because chaos would erupt if they were found out. So we open up someone's head or try to measure the inside in anyway, the green humunculi in the head of the observer(s) alters their perceptions so they just see, feel and measure a slimy, fleshy mass called a 'brain'.[/b]

If you think that strongly enough, it will be your reality. There is no doubt about that. And it's actually kind of a scary concept that is slightly disturbing.

However a normal person can use their intelligence and realize that this is very unlikely the case. For several reasons.

Questions normally asked:

Why do they need to keep their identity's secret? why would chaos erupt?
where do they get their ability to do this and how do they function or exist? How did they get into our brains? What is the history of these creatures? What is their motive and purpose?
And most importantly.......

How do we even know about them if they keep their identitys a secret?

When we weigh up what we can realize, and what is not in our power to realize. It is not suprising that this idea is not considered seriously. And no scientist has embarked on proving this creatures existence that I know of. Most likely for a good reason based on the logic above. In addition anyone with a shred of intuition that is not totally disoriented from reality, can grasp and feel that something like this is just not resonable, usings ones 'higher' senses they can intuitively understand. This is a different subject but I will mention it here. Someone less evolved would not have a clue about this as they have not developed much of an intuition. But it is still unlikely they would come to this conclusion.

One who has no higher senses to reach their intuition or connection to their soul, will go about trying to reason in this way using the mind as a tool. But an inefficient one without the higher senses to guide them and reveal to them what they know is true. As is evident here.

Originally posted by kimpossible+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kimpossible)</div>Without clear definition, as Mark so rightly observes, disproving anything isn't possible. By the same token, proving anything is impossible without again having clear definition of what we're trying to arrive at.[/b]

You have added here, without a clear definition......Which changes everything you mentioned beforehand to basically this.......Something can be disproved or proved with a clear definition of what we are trying to arrive at.

Originally posted by kimpossible
The holdout of the funnymentalist [sic] is in keeping the definitions vague.

If someone keeps the definitions vague, it will not stop us from stating the truth and they cannot fight it, no matter what they try.

Originally posted by kimpossible
If we accept something as clearly defined, we can then make a statistical observation: There is a 99.99999999999[...] percent likelyhood that there is no lion on Mark's desk.

The problem is how do you accurately come to that statistic?


<!--QuoteBegin-kimpossible@
Which means that 999,999,9999,999,999,999 times out of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 that we check Mark's desk, there isn't going to be a lion there. Could there be a lion there? In practice, no. Statistically, it is disproven. But logic prevents that absolute statement.

Statistics are useful to come to conclusions, if they are accurate.

<!--QuoteBegin-kimpossible
God is the same way. There has never been a valid observation of god documented in the history of mankind. So statistically it's absolutely safe to say god doesn't exist. You can't disprove it logically, but you can safely go about your life knowing that it's not going to happen either.

It is not statistically safe, because you have no idea what statistics are involved. Things are going to be discovered.

You can safely go about your life knowing what is not going to happen?

Humanity is not evolved enough to understand how the universe is structured yet. Some may be arrogant enough to think they know. But when science evolves more, and when people evolve in their consiousness. We will be in a position to finding out the structure of the universe more precisely. And our purpose and existence. Wether that be through sacred geometry or whatever it is. As well as consious spiritual evolution. We are already coming very close to the point where we are going to once again have to update just about our entire understanding of science, to fit the new model of understanding coming through now. In the next 200 years if we don't destory ourself it will start to become very clear. The oneness princible for example. Science is getting muddy because of all the controversial theorys coming in now, and a new model is going to emerge. Which will be proved without doubt. The growing number of initiates and disciples will also cause wonders which cannot be ignored. All this is going to effect the way we look at reality. And it's going make people think twince about who they are. It's also going to make very clear the law of re-birth known as a reality. And the truth about our immortality.

[Mark75]

Ugh... You’re doing it again.
Originally posted by Nirvana Starseed
Why do they need to keep their identity's secret? why would chaos erupt?
where do they get their ability to do this and how do they function or exist? How did they get into our brains? What is the history of these creatures? What is their motive and purpose?
And most importantly.......

How do we even know about them if they keep their identitys a secret?

The Green Humunculi work in mysterious ways.

[quote]Humanity is not evolved enough to understand how the universe is structured yet. Some may be arrogant enough to think they know. But when science evolves more, and when people evolve in their consiousness. We will be in a position to finding out the structure of the universe more precisely. And our purpose and existence. Wether that be through sacred geometry or whatever it is. As well as consious spiritual evolution. We are already coming very close to the point where we are going to once again have to update just about our entire understanding of science, to fit the new model of understanding coming through now. In the next 200 years if we don't destory ourself it will start to become very clear. The oneness princible for example. Science is getting muddy because of all the controversial theorys coming in now, and a new model is going to emerge. Which will be proved without doubt. The growing number of initiates and disciples will also cause wonders which cannot be ignored. All this is going to effect the way we look at reality.

Man... you never miss a chance to plug your oneness theory.
And what, precisely, makes you think this? How is it you’d have such knowledge? Sounds like more B.S. to me.

[kimpossible]

For the terminally stupid in the room:


Mark, on average:


How many times a day do you observe the surface of your desk?
How many years have you had a desk?



Have you at any of those times in any of those years observed anything from the genus of Panthera, and noteably Panthera Leo, on the desk?
Have you at any of those times observed ANY evidence within your domicile of any animal within the order of Carnivora, family of Felidae, genus of Panthera having taken up residence (temporary or permanent)?

If the answers to these questions are "no" then we can safely say "if you don't move your residence, lions are not going to come and visit your desktop"

[Mark75]

Originally posted by kimpossible+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kimpossible)</div>
Mark, on average:


How many times a day do you observe the surface of your desk?
[/b]
Roughly five times each day.
Originally posted by kimpossible+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kimpossible)</div>
How many years have you had a desk?
[/b]
I'm not entirely sure, but I'd guess it's been around five.
<!--QuoteBegin-kimpossible@

Have you at any of those times in any of those years observed anything from the genus of Panthera, and noteably Panthera Leo, on the desk?
Have you at any of those times observed ANY evidence within your domicile of any animal within the order of Carnivora, family of Felidae, genus of Panthera having taken up residence (temporary or permanent)?
No, not even once. In fact, the desk is so small and cluttered that there isn't even enough room for my house cats to stand on it. Further evidence that such a large cat could not be on the desk.

5 years x 365 days = 1825 days.
1825 days x 5 checks per day = 9125 checks total
0/9125 =0%
So far, out of roughly 9125 checks, I have had a zero percent chance of seeing a lion on my desk. When we factor in that I have also not seen any other similar large, wild cats, we can see that it is very improbable (i.e. impossible) for there to be a cat of this type on my desk.
<!--QuoteBegin-kimpossible

If the answers to these questions are \"no\" then we can safely say \"if you don't move your residence, lions are not going to come and visit your desktop\"
It should also be noted that lions are not native to Alberta.

[Awaken4e1]

Originally posted by Nirvana Starseed


You can destroy anything beautiful by seeing satan under every rock.
Lets see how the enemies of jesus did this with the same type of warped definition.

This was a very easy thing to do. Take something beautiful and destroy it through deciet. It is easier to curse the darkness than to light a candel.

Let’s take a very serious look at what the induction of ‘Santa Claus’ has done to our observance of Christmas within our modern society. The American version of the Santa Claus figure received its inspiration and its name from the Dutch legend of Sinter Klaas, brought by settlers to New York in the 17th century. It has turned a truly biblically founded act of love, and compassion toward those of lesser means. Into an all out ‘free-for-all’ of animalistic carnivorous consumerism, where the true meaning has been lost hundreds of years ago, by the industrialization of a truly noble saint. Just as every other thing which carnal man puts his hands to.

The Rev.

[bradybaker]

Oh well, if Jesus ever even existed at all, best estimates show that he was born in the spring anyways.

[Nirvana Starseed]

Awaken yes, this was manifested somewhat in the revelations which I have begun to interpret on the forum, where it mentions the 2 prophets that laid dead in which people were happy celebrating their death and giving each other presents. But on the 3 and a half cycles they are said to rise from the dead, and bring great fear to all those who were relieved from their death. The 3 and a half cycles are almost up.

More on this when we come to it.

[Universal Mind]

Does "Rudolph the Red Nose Rein Deer" have Satanic backwards messages? If you listen very closely to Bing Crosby's version of "Santa Claus is Coming to Town", you can hear a dragon breathing. :mad:

[ladylazarus]

Originally posted by Mark75

Wrong. -1 point.
I can show that something doesn't exist under certain conditions (e.g. on my desk). I can prove that a lion is not on my desk at a mere glance when we impose certain conditions. The conditions being that a lion is a large cat and that said cat is located on the desk in my room. Obviously due to the size of this cat and the fact that we know that lions reflect light, we could expect that it if it were there, quite simply, we would see it. The lion as defined here does not exist on my desk.

If that's your criteria, then absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

[Mark75]

Originally posted by ladylazarus


If that's your criteria, then absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Wrong, - 2 points.

Evidence that the lion is not there:

- We cannot see it.
- It would be too large to stand on the desk
- Lions are not native to the country in which the desk is located

Thanks, try again another time.

[Nirvana Starseed]

You guys can't be serious.......

[Awaken4e1]

Originally posted by Nirvana Starseed
You guys can't be serious.......

I don't they can...

[bradybaker]

Originally posted by Nirvana Starseed
You guys can't be serious.......
Who and what is that directed at? The two who are having a logical conversation of...logic?

[Nirvana Starseed]

It's a silly conversation about how a Lion is or is not proved to be on marks empty desk. And the statistics of one apearing when he checks. Absolutely ridiculous.

[bradybaker]

Originally posted by Nirvana Starseed
It's a silly conversation about how a Lion is or is not proved to be on marks empty desk. And the statistics of one apearing when he checks. Absolutely ridiculous.
I'm still speechless....I am still without speech.

[Nirvana Starseed]

ok update my quote cause I updated my post. You replied in like 1 second.
.....ok 5 minutes.

thats what happens when you type to fast in more than one window at a time.

[Mark75]

I was merely demonstrating that it is possible to prove that something does not exist. What, precisely, is it that you find so unreasonable about that? You probably would have come to this conclusion on your own had you bothered to give some thought to what had been written.

[kimpossible]

Originally posted by Mark75
[...]to give some thought [...].

And there-in lies the problem.

[Ex Nine]

Note, "thought" does not necessarily mean acceptance.